You are not logged in.
Today? Exciting! I thought they had to fit a new Raptor engine or something...
I know every test is important but this was one is super-important! They've made many improvements...but have they addressed the challenges of the return to ground to avoid the catastrophic fires? If they have then an orbital flight can't be far away...if they haven't, this might be a far more difficult problem to overcome than first thought.
The launch of SN 15 is starting coverage at 10:00 AM MDT through several of the YouTube channels: Everyday Astronaut, NASA Spaceflight; and What About It.
I am keeping a totally open mind on the subject.
Whilst it's true that pareidolia means we are very adept at imagining we can see faces in things, equally, it's quite odd I would say to see such a large number of objects with more than just facial indications but also, it appears, what looks like teeth in the right place.
A second point is that claiming it is all about recognising faces is misleading. Take for instance this item:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucy8boYwSeQ&t=318s
A jug on Mars? I'd say there's no ambiguity about the raw image. It looks like a jug with a very regular, bevilled body and a clear handle, well defined by the way the light is falling on it.
I'd say this is one of the best "anomalous" images. To dismiss it out of hand is absurd. I do not rule out the possibility this is some freak of nature but I have never seen such a regular object with what looks like a handle produced naturally on Earth. I think it's for you to explain what natural process could produce a regular object with a handle.
The question I would ask as well is this: "Did no one at NASA notice that image? Did no one say - that's crazy, we need to go take a closer look and get a better picture..." ? That's a puzzle in itself.
I watched part of the video. I can remember reading that the human brain has an evolved ability to recognise familiar patterns in random objects, especially faces. We tend to see faces in clouds, in wallpaper, etc. Over the years, humans have imagined that random star formations draw pictures of bears, of warriors, of beautiful women. Our brains are innately programmed to draw out familiar patterns, even if they are entirely coincidental.
This guy was talking about a rock at the Perseverance landing site that is shaped a bit like a baboon skull. But if we look at the sheer number of rocks strewn across the landing site and consider that most of them aren't really eroded that much compared to similar rocks on Earth, it isn't really a big coincidence that some of them happen to be roughly shaped like objects we are familiar with at certain angles. When you combine that with the tendency of the human brain to fill in gaps in our cognition to produce familiar objects, especially faces, we end up seeing things in these rocks that aren't really there.
Twenty years ago, there was a whole load of quasi-religious conspiracy theories surrounding the Cydonia region on Mars. One of the pictures taken by the Viking orbiter showed a hill which looked a lot like a human face. In later images, the face was gone. In the Viking image, the combination of contours and shadow had produced a pattern that immediately triggered facial recognition in the human brain. I would suggest that the same thing is happening with the baboon skull.
Some very interesting and intriguing images from the Perserverance cameras, analysed by Joe White at Art Alien TV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENnQQngN99s&t=316s
Certainly up there in the Top 100 I think.
I like the anarchic streak in Musk but I do wonder whether, once he gets his rockets to work, he will really be able to put together a workable settlement plan.
A plan is required in my view.
I think Space X should establish a Mars Corporation, to oversee operations on Mars, and there be a programme moving towards self governance. Initially Space X could have a controlling interest in the Mars Corporation, The Mars Corporation should have a development plan. One element should be I think to invite people from all countries on Earth to apply to become part of the project, moving it away from an explicitly American identity, although I have always thought it will still have a strong American cultural flavour - something like an American campus feel where you have students and lecturers from all around the world.
"The U.S. government does not require naturalized U.S. citizens to relinquish citizenship in their country of origin. Although the Oath of Allegiance to the United States speaks of renouncing “allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, U.S. immigration law does not explicitly address the topic of dual citizenship. The best summarization of the U.S. government’s position on dual citizenship lies in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion, which explains that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” The U.S. Department of State also has a more technical discussion of dual citizenship."
https://www.boundless.com/immigration-r … tizenship/
A legal mess. The Oath of Allegiance would clearly be unenforceable in many respects given the Supreme Court judgement.
2. You're just asserting that to be the case that an American company must follow American laws even though operating on Mars. Does an American company have to follow American laws when operating in France? No. And if you are saying American laws apply, well no American law or constitutional provision allows a company to arrest someone and hold them against their will, does it? So what would be the legal basis for arrest and constraint if someone for instance was found guilty of say theft or sexual harrassment on Mars? More particularly how would it apply if non-American citizens were involved. I think there is simply no existing legal provision that covers operation of Mars bases. No doubt American courts would be sympathetic to the idea of extending their writ to Mars. Space X isn't always going to be flying out of the USA exclusively.
If you are going to attempt to apply maritime law (no basis for that) then there are plenty of American ships owned by American companies and commanded by American officers that fly under the flag of Panama.
What's to stop Space X "registering" a Starship with another country?
In any case if you say "American law" applies, then it can only be that law and not something in addition. This is why I say that when you talk about a command structure and reference the military, you are forgetting about the voluminous regulations. In the USA and UK these regulations have legal force - are approved by statute or other legal power. Now, unless you have regulations with legal backing you can't have the sort of command structure you are talking about.
As I say, I don't think these matters will be a problem in the earliest missions when you can maintain a lot of quality control over team selection. But later, when you have people on Mars working for universities, space agencies, companies and charities (e.g. ones interesting in climate change and the like) plus independent tourists, then you have to get ready to deal with conflict and transgression.
Louis,
louis wrote:I don't have any major disagreements with what you write, except you seem to assume context, but I do have some comments:
1. The US now allows dual nationality so I think it is an entirely open question whether a person who is both an American citizen and a citizen of the People's Republic of China owes loyalty primarily to one or the other. Both countries require that you travel the globe with your loyalty to their constitution with you at all times. The US is unusual in often extending its laws e.g. commercial laws to other countries' territories.
The US allows dual citizenship, but you swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America and renounce any oaths taken to any foreign country. If you refuse to take the oath, then you're not an American.
louis wrote:2. The OST explicitly excludes signatories (including the USA) making any claim to the territory. It could be said that saying your constututional writ runs on Mars is making a claim to the territory. It wouldn't be very logical for the US to say "we make no claim to Mars but we expect every American to adhere to all our laws while on Mars including in relation to taxation, commerce, property ownership and so on". What would be the status of non-Americans at a Space X base? Would they have the same obligations as American citizens?
I can tell you that if you're on an American-flagged ship or base, which would include any mission that launches from American soil or uses American space technology (rockets, life support, space suits, etc), then American laws apply. There's no such thing as a "SpaceX base", apart from the legal entity that owns the property. SpaceX is an American corporation subject to American laws, plain and simple. All legal arguments to the contrary have been repeatedly struck down by the courts. If you operate a corporation from American soil, then you're subject to American laws, no matter where else you operate. An American company accused of stealing IP from a Chinese corporation would be prosecuted in an American court for doing so. Pirates have tried to make the claim that American laws don't apply to them when they attack American ships. The American Navy thinks otherwise and will execute them on the spot if they refuse to be taken prisoner.
If the UK creates their own space rockets launched from UK soil, then UK laws apply.
If the Canadians create their own space rockets launched from Canadian soil, then Canadian laws apply.
The laws related to citizenship and incorporation don't cease to apply because you operate somewhere else. That's why Tesla factories operated in China are operated under a separate legal entity that's subject to Chinese laws. Other corporations establish legal entities in other countries for the same reason. Long story short, laws apply, no matter where you are.
louis wrote:3. You seem to assume there will be a rigid command structure. Space X have never stated there will be. Command structures more often than not go with voluminous military or similar regulations which ultimately are backed up by statues approved by the state.
No, I don't, but any mission involving astronauts will have a clearly defined command structure. I get the impression that people who have never been in the military think you have people going around screaming, "I order you to do this! I order you to do that!", but it simply doesn't work that way in real life. It's more like, you walk into the ready room and say, "Good morning, Skipper, what are we doing today?", to which he or she responds, "Well, we've been tasked by headquarters to do X today, so what assets do we have available for that mission?"
You do have to address officers as "sir" or "ma'am" or by their proper rank and officers do have to address the enlisted by their proper rate. There are also informal or hurried conversations where we dispense with ranks and rates to get a job done faster, and will simply address someone by their last name or callsign so everyone else knows who we're talking to. Nobody salutes anyone on a battlefield or comes to attention, and both officers and enlisted around you will become more than a little irritated with you if you insist on doing that, mostly because the enemy may not be able to tell who's who when they start shooting.
Believe it or not, there is mutual respect amongst members of the military for both the offices and jobs that we do, which is ultimately a sign of respect to the people and to the country for which they stand. I always find civilian responses to love and respect for your fellow countrymen a bit mystifying. I don't see how you can have much mutual cooperation without love and respect for each other.
louis wrote:4. Having regard to 1 and 2 above, I think the issue of what status rules on Mars have remains problematic. It probably won't be an issue for Mission One and the early missions when teams are small. But by the time you've got say 100 people on Mars - some Space X employees, some American nationals, some non-American nationals, some employees of Universities , other space agencies or large companies (Earth-based) and some individual paying "guests", then you have no easily defined command structure and it is not clear whose rules apply. This is one of the reasons I would like to see a clear route map to a single sovereign democratic self-governing state for the Planet Mars. This would be a staged process. You could start with a governor, and then have a governor with an appointed advisory council, before you introduce some elections for advisory council members, and gradually democratise the whole process as the population of Mars grows. We have examples from history where colonial companies like the East India Company and Hudson Bay Company would appoint governors.
Again, you have to cooperate with each other and have minimum standards for behavior towards each other. If you want to take a vote on who's in charge, that's fine, but then you have to carry out the orders of those appointed over you. Civilian authority doesn't change the fact that the ship or base has to be cleaned / repaired / inspected / etc if you want to live.
The military clearly defines lawful orders and your duty to refuse unlawful orders and to arrest anyone who gives an unlawful order. Even COs are subject to the law. If they issue an unlawful order, the Master-At-Arms will confine the CO to quarters and the XO will take over pending the outcome of a court martial. This has happened before aboard warships of every nation, and while it's obviously very serious, there are also legal remedies for dealing with unlawful orders.
The CO tasking you with performing a particularly dangerous repair assignment is lawful, even if you or someone else thinks the necessity of carrying out the repair is questionable. You can ask the CO if he or she will reconsider or provide details about why you think the repair is unnecessary, but since ultimate responsibility rests with the CO, being ordered to repair the ship or base is at the CO's discretion. If the CO orders you to kill someone on the spot who does not clearly present a danger to anyone else, that would clearly be unlawful and cause for the CO's immediate arrest.
louis wrote:5. Regarding diversity, there are a number of issues:
(a) In a very small team you can probably have a lot of diversity without any risk to standards of output. The larger the workforce, the greater the risk unless all the skill areas you are interested in (engineering, farming, rocket experts) are already fully diverse (which I think we can assume is not the case). I don't think you should value diversity over work quality standards but you can see there is pressure in that direction.
(b) For Mission One, I think there will be a big focus on the people going to Mars, and I think there will be a lot of pressure to create a diverse team. That's not particularly my wish, just a statement of reality and I was giving an indication of what I think would be considered an "ideal" team in the current era.
(c) How do you define diversity? If you value it, are you trying to replicate on Mars (in a proportionate way), American diversity (which still is a majoritarian European origin country I believe) or world diversity (where Europeans are quite a small minority)? Is it not about proportions and percentages - is it enough to simply to have all the races and nationalities across the world represented? Or are you trying for a different diversity on Mars? Are you looked to create more a mixed race community where there are no sharp racial differences in appearance, more a blended continuum...more Brazil than USA.
(d) Your views on women and their interests, however objectively true, could get you fired from a lot of places now. This is the problem with letting PC ideology run rampant - it stifles free debate, just as much as in the days when patriarchy ruled unchallenged.
(e) Religious diversity could be even trickier. Are we looking to reflect religious belief on Earth with strict proportions of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Daoists and so on ? Or are should we actually be looking to recruit people who don't practise a religious faith in any overt fashion. You will be saving yourself a helluvalot of bother if you go for the latter.
I don't have a dictionary definition for diversity because it's subjective. I can tell you that innate physical characteristics are not a mark of useful diversity. I do value diversity of thought, skill, education, and character. Having a mission with one American, one Russian, one German, one Canadian, one Japanese astronaut / cosmonaut or what have you, is not inherently useful. A mechanic is useful if the problem is a broken engine. A mechanic is not useful if the problem is a broken leg. If each of those people bring unique and useful skills to the mission and they're the best at what they do, then that's useful diversity. What they look like and where they're from is superfluous. They either work well with each other and have the required skill set for the mission or they don't.
My bunk mate in boot camp was from Nigeria. He wasn't useful to the US Navy because he was from Nigeria. He was useful because he was highly intelligent (at least according to military testing, although I'm sure a few civilians will think otherwise because he joined the military), followed orders, and was good at what the Navy wanted him to do. I also had a friend from New York on my first ship. He wasn't "usefully diverse" because he was from New York vs Nigeria vs somewhere else. Once again, he was intelligent and required very little guidance on orders because he was good at his job. The Chief or Division Officer really likes being able to simply tell the sailors, "We need to do X today", then walk away, and come back later after "X" has been done. They really don't have any interest at all in telling you how to do your job. They want you to already know that and to inform them of any problems with whatever you've been ordered to do, so they can inform their superiors or otherwise facilitate a solution.
My views on differences between men and women is merely admitting to the simple fact that we are different in meaningful ways. It's not a criticism. This was in response to all-men or all-women missions. If the people on the mission don't represent human society, then you don't have a human society on Mars. Having both men and women present is a pretty fundamental aspect of human society. Any society that survives beyond a single generation will also have children present. As I stated before, the fact that we're different is NOT an actual problem. Natural selection already dictated to us that we complement each other. The overriding theme behind my commentary is that you absolutely need BOTH, or you don't have a well-functioning society. One is not better than the other. I've seen and read enough "battle of the sexes" nonsense in media lately to know that it's pure idiocy. Men are not better than women and women are not better than men.
About 60 million European deaths (Europeans killing each other) in two world wars and war, until the late 1940s, had been pretty much endemic in Europe.
Similar fatality rates were experienced in East Asia as Japan sought to subdue China and other territories. The Chinese then fought a civil war that killed millions. Their political infighting under the Communists also resulted in huge death tolls from starvation. In Korea millions died in war. In Indonesia during the persecution of Communists and Chinese communities a 100,000 died.
India has always experienced appalling communal violence. It is thought two million died during the communal violence that erupted when partition was put into effect.
While Africa has had some appalling Civil Wars, wars between states have been very limited.
I think a little humility is in order.
Interesting thread. Regarding whose laws apply on Mars, it will be the laws that apply in the nation where the establishing entity is incorporated. I agree with Kbd on this. It cannot really be otherwise, unless or until, your Mars base achieves a degree of self determination.
Many people automatically assume that it is desirable for that to happen as soon as possible. But establishing your own laws, government body, trading arrangements, extradition treaties, etc, is not a trivial exercise. It is a costly endeavour and you need a certain scale before it can work effectively. Musk's proposed 1 million person colony would appear to me to be large enough to make that exercise an affordable burden. Remember, it comes with costs that have to be averaged over the whole population. If the colony consists of 1000 colonists, then it would seem altogether less affordable. Somewhere between those two numbers, the costs are affordable enough and the desire for independence great enough, to tip the balance.
Racial diversity adds no value at all to a society in and of itself. In fact, it generally leads to division and conflict, because human beings are naturally tribal. The fact that BLM exists is enough to prove that. It doesn't matter whether you personally like that fact. Human beings are the rough tribal things that they are and their limitations need to be respected. The far left appear to value racial division for its own sake. But this is a consequence of the sickness of their minds. The Japanese avoid the problems resulting from racial division by not allowing immigration into their country. Australia had a white only immigration policy for much the same reason. Society may choose to relax controls on who can settle there, in order to allow access to a broader skill base or to bolster a shrinking population, allowing government to continue paying debts. In this case, having extra skilled citizens is an asset that you might not have had without relaxing the rules. But their racial differences in itself, is not valuable in any practical way. It is a problem that must be managed.
In the case of East Asians, who have evolved in complex hierarchical societies, that is going to be easier than it would be for Africans, who did not evolve complex society before white man came along and where the law is the word of the man with the biggest gun. These people are belligerent and violent and will be a constant thorn in the side of any society that they settle in. I think that if technical ability is used as the determinant for who emigrates to Mars, problems of racial friction will be much less of a problem. In the US, Whites, East Asians and Indians get along quite well, because they have the IQ levels that enable them to work and thrive in complex societies with differentiated roles. Disputes are settled non-violently and crime is low level. The people that can't do well in that situation are the Africans, who appear to suffer endemic violent crime and low levels of academic achievement. They just don't have the ability to live and thrive in complex societies. Of course, we are constantly told that this is the result of oppression from the evil colonialist whitey population. But the fact is that the Asians and Jews have managed to do extremely well in Western countries. If migration is based on genuine ability and achievement, you won't see many African trouble makers on Mars. Those that do make it, will be top tier in terms of ability and hopefully able to rise above crude tribalistic violence and victim culture.
I think it will be quite difficult for Mars to be your libertarian paradise until you get to the point where people can live in their own homesteads...then it might be possible for them to live more freely. That would mean developing cheap pressurised habs and cheap energy and life support systems. I can see that being a possibility and it might prove attractive to a lot of people. Maybe mining their own water from a local glacier, growing their own fresh food in farm habs, and maybe selling some to outlets in the big city to provide some cash with which to purchase clothes and technical gadgets.
Some people might find it claustrophobic but I guess you could get in your rover every now and then and drive around the landscape.
Again, the point of moving to Mars it to tell government where to shove it! The excessive unreasonable overbearing regulation that exists on Earth right now is why many people want to move to Mars. And zero tax. The United States expects any American citizens will remain citizens, and that means the IRS can continue to charge you tax. That defeats the point.
tahanson43206 wrote:The only Americans who (I am under the impression) willingly give up their citizenship have stashed ill gotten gains in foreign countries.
The idea of an honest American giving up citizenship for an adventure in a place away from US jurisdiction seems quite surprising (to me at least).
I'd much rather see other citizens of ** other ** Nations give up their citizenship.
I can just imagine how your idea would resonate in China, to pick just one prominent example.
I worked in the United States a couple times. In 1996 I worked in a suburb of Richmond Virginia for 6 months. To be technical, it was 2 days short of 6 months. The US demands its citizens pay income tax, even if they don't reside in the United States. This is offensive, but in the case of Canada there's a treaty. If a Canadian works in the US for less than 6 months, then he doesn't pay income tax to the US (IRS). He only pays tax to Canada (CRA). But if he works more than 6 months, he does have to pay tax to the IRS... and CRA, both! The second time I worked in the US was 1999/2000 in Miami Florida. I had a 12 month contract. My employer terminated me early, I only worked for 9½ months, but that's over 6. I paid income tax to the IRS. CRA allowed me to treat that as a foreign tax credit. The Canada/US income tax treaty states whatever I pay to the US is supposed to be deducted from what I owe to Canada. Of course the tax form has a complicated formula that resulted in me paying a little more. They always manipulate it so you pay more. And Florida doesn't (or didn't at that time) have any state income tax. But I came from Manitoba, so had to fill out a Manitoba income tax form. Manitoba does, so the fact Florida doesn't didn't help me at all.
If you move to Mars and retain your citizenship, you will have to pay income tax to the IRS. And they will charge you state tax for whichever state you came from.
You think only the very rich want to get away from tax? No! Average working people who don't earn enough to make ends meet are very angry at the government for taking what little they have. If a ticket to Mars becomes affordable, many will go. Even if they arrive with nothing but the clothes they wear and some luggage. They could get a job on Mars to earn enough to build a homestead. With no tax, that should be possible on Mars. On Earth... not so much!
At the 2004 Mars Society Convention in Chicago, we had one person give a presentation in "tracks". His point was we have to designate vast tracts of land on Mars as nature preserves. Act now before it's too late! But there is no nature on Mars. We looked. Ok, NASA has some locations they think *might* hold fossil evidence of past life. But designate large areas as off limits before the first human has ever set foot on the Red Planet? That's absurd! Yes, I spoke up. I'm a moderate, but that day I sounded like a redneck. I'm afraid I deliberately pulled out everything that the tree-huggers would hate. Shocked him to the max.
I am also reminded of an old cartoon: Yogi's Gang. Each episode the group would go to another remote location trying to find the "perfect place". But each time they brought all their old habits with them. Each episode they went to a clean, pristine location. But then littered profusely, complained about the litter, then moved on in search of the next "perfect place". The reason for going to Mars is to get away from government interference in your affairs. Some busybody dictating to you what you can or cannot do on your own property. And to get away from tax. If you bring all the crap with you, then that defeats the point of Mars.
You want another example? A couple years ago a neighbour replaced the roof on his garage roof. Actually the woman owned the house, her boyfriend moved in. After he replaced the roof of her garage, he complained about my garage. He claimed the shingles of my garage roof were not good enough. He also complained about the fence. I was out of work, surviving on what little I had. I had rebuild the fence in the 1990s, replacing fence posts. Made a measurement error, rebuilt the fence a couple inches on my side of the property line. But that means it's entirely on my property. The previous owner of that house built up soil around their house, directing rain water away from the foundation. My house is in the city, properties on this block are only 25 feet wide. The neighbour packed the soil against the bottom edge of the wooden pickets of my fence. This caused the bottom edge to rot. The neighbour's boyfriend decided to help himself, rip pickets off my fence. I caught him, told him to stop. He yelled at me. So I called the police, had them to to him. The troublemaker then called city bylaw enforcement. The city demanded I replace shingles on the roof of my garage. I didn't have money to do so, had to borrow money from a relative. Did the work myself to keep cost down. But the neighbour also complained about debris between the garages. That debris was the old roof from his garage (his girlfriend's garage); debris he put there. The city bylaw enforcement officer gave me a written order to remove that debris at my cost. While working on the garage, I discovered the debris had retained water, caused rot in the bottom clapboards of my garage, and bottom of the wall studs. That garage wall had drywall and insulation. I had to throw out the drywall and insulation. Doubled wall studs and lift that wall back up. Replace the clapboards. All at my cost. A couple other neighbour garages down the back lane had roofs in worse condition, and one house was worse. But I had to do this because the city intervened. And I had to replace the fence... again at my cost. He damaged my garage, damaged my fence, stored debris, all of which I had to fix at my cost. I tried to contact my city councillor, but he wouldn't answer my calls. They city lawyer even dragged me into court! The lawyer claimed the city was prosecuting me, and called the neighbour a "witness". Luckily the neighbour couldn't be bothered to stay in court until the case was called. The city lawyer dropped the case when the neighbour left.
This is an example of a working guy getting screwed. And I saw many cases that day I was waiting in court, cases where the city interfered with their homes.
Another example: I read in the newspaper that a homeowner in another part of the city hired someone to do some work. The workman replaced the eavestrough (Americans call it a gutter). The city bylaw enforcement officer gave the homeowner a ticket for not having an eavestrough. The workman was just replacing it with a new one! And that same house had a window removed, replaced with wall. The city bylaw enforcement officer issued a ticket for "inappropriate window glazing". That wasn't a window at all any more! It was a wall! The ticket was issued after OSB was put up. The workman had to wait for warm weather before applying stucco.
When I lived in Virginia, my immediate supervisor built a double detached garage behind his house. The county inspector said he can't build there. A corner of the garage went over the natural gas line. The homeowner (my boss) offered to increase the thickness of the concrete so it's thick enough to ensure it doesn't put pressure on the natural gas line. The inspector accepted a bribe, and agreed to the thicker concrete. Yes, government inspectors in the US take bribes.
Are you beginning to understand why real people want to tell government where to shove it?
Most of the people fighting Americans in Afghanistan after 9-11 weren't Afghans so your rather facile argument about patriotism doesn't apply!
Normal relations with Cuba? Is that the same Cuba that uses ultrasound weapons on American diplomats?
The purpose of Guantanamo Bay is to violate every known law. When you invade a country, citizens of that country are obligated to defend their country from you. Absolutely every citizen who engages in combat of any sort to defend their country from you is patriot. The Geneva Convention is the law that governs war. Every citizen of that country you capture is a prisoner of war. Once cessation of hostilities is declared, you are required to release all prisoners of war. Furthermore, you are not allowed to torture prisoners. Water boarding is torture. Guantanamo Bay is about: to hell with law, we're the big bully and we'll do whatever we want.
When Barack Obama was first elected in 2008, one election promise was to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I call on Joe Biden to fulfill that promise. He likes invoke President Obama so much. Republicans got in President Obama's way in 2008. One simple method that any President can do: close the entire military base, return the land back to Cuba. Then no one can oppose closing the prison. Under US law, closing a base is entirely the authority of a President. And now that President Obama has established normal relations with Cuba, the country of Cuba has issued an official statement through their ambassador asking for that land back.
Let's not duplicate the mistakes of history. Saint John's Newfoundland was established by fishermen in 1496/'97 and the years shortly after. It wasn't any government. The rule they set is the captain of the fishing ship that arrived at Saint John's first each fishing season was declared Fishing Admiral for that season. Effectively governor. There were fishermen there from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Normandy (part of France but culturally separate), and Basque (part of Spain, but also culturally separate). There were Dutch traders as well, but I'm not sure of the dates. In 1583 British Admiral Humphrey Gilbert arrived with 3 navy ships. One of the frigates had engaged in an act of piracy against one of the Portuguese fishing ships, so fishermen tried to blockade the harbour. The standoff lasted 3 days, but they got through. With marines, they demanded tax at the point of a gun. The Admiral sailed the caravel across the North Atlantic to England. It disappeared during that journey. For decades no one dared try to collect tax from Saint John's again. Over the centuries there were many wars over Saint John's. At one point businessmen of Saint John's hired mercenaries to kick out all armies of all European nations. It was war. Don't repeat mistakes of the past, don't start an interplanetary war.
I don't have any major disagreements with what you write, except you seem to assume context, but I do have some comments:
1. The US now allows dual nationality so I think it is an entirely open question whether a person who is both an American citizen and a citizen of the People's Republic of China owes loyalty primarily to one or the other. Both countries require that you travel the globe with your loyalty to their constitution with you at all times. The US is unusual in often extending its laws e.g. commercial laws to other countries' territories.
2. The OST explicitly excludes signatories (including the USA) making any claim to the territory. It could be said that saying your constututional writ runs on Mars is making a claim to the territory. It wouldn't be very logical for the US to say "we make no claim to Mars but we expect every American to adhere to all our laws while on Mars including in relation to taxation, commerce, property ownership and so on". What would be the status of non-Americans at a Space X base? Would they have the same obligations as American citizens?
3. You seem to assume there will be a rigid command structure. Space X have never stated there will be. Command structures more often than not go with voluminous military or similar regulations which ultimately are backed up by statues approved by the state.
4. Having regard to 1 and 2 above, I think the issue of what status rules on Mars have remains problematic. It probably won't be an issue for Mission One and the early missions when teams are small. But by the time you've got say 100 people on Mars - some Space X employees, some American nationals, some non-American nationals, some employees of Universities , other space agencies or large companies (Earth-based) and some individual paying "guests", then you have no easily defined command structure and it is not clear whose rules apply. This is one of the reasons I would like to see a clear route map to a single sovereign democratic self-governing state for the Planet Mars. This would be a staged process. You could start with a governor, and then have a governor with an appointed advisory council, before you introduce some elections for advisory council members, and gradually democratise the whole process as the population of Mars grows. We have examples from history where colonial companies like the East India Company and Hudson Bay Company would appoint governors.
5. Regarding diversity, there are a number of issues:
(a) In a very small team you can probably have a lot of diversity without any risk to standards of output. The larger the workforce, the greater the risk unless all the skill areas you are interested in (engineering, farming, rocket experts) are already fully diverse (which I think we can assume is not the case). I don't think you should value diversity over work quality standards but you can see there is pressure in that direction.
(b) For Mission One, I think there will be a big focus on the people going to Mars, and I think there will be a lot of pressure to create a diverse team. That's not particularly my wish, just a statement of reality and I was giving an indication of what I think would be considered an "ideal" team in the current era.
(c) How do you define diversity? If you value it, are you trying to replicate on Mars (in a proportionate way), American diversity (which still is a majoritarian European origin country I believe) or world diversity (where Europeans are quite a small minority)? Is it not about proportions and percentages - is it enough to simply to have all the races and nationalities across the world represented? Or are you trying for a different diversity on Mars? Are you looked to create more a mixed race community where there are no sharp racial differences in appearance, more a blended continuum...more Brazil than USA.
(d) Your views on women and their interests, however objectively true, could get you fired from a lot of places now. This is the problem with letting PC ideology run rampant - it stifles free debate, just as much as in the days when patriarchy ruled unchallenged.
(e) Religious diversity could be even trickier. Are we looking to reflect religious belief on Earth with strict proportions of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Daoists and so on ? Or are should we actually be looking to recruit people who don't practise a religious faith in any overt fashion. You will be saving yourself a helluvalot of bother if you go for the latter.
Louis,
I can tell you that our courts have already decided and continuously reaffirmed that no matter where you are, you're still an American. Your rights and responsibilities to uphold the law (The Constitution) follows you, wherever you go. That's why the oaths of office and allegiance to the country and its people make so many different references to protecting and defending The Constitution (the law of the land, the principles that make us free and our actions just), bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, and obeying all lawful orders of those appointed over you. The founding principles are not bound within some particular man or woman and they are not dependent upon convenience. The entire reason American law defers to foreign law in foreign lands is to avoid needless conflicts over jurisdiction.
You can request permission to speak freely, especially to address problems, but you can't actively undermine the command structure the way politicians are so fond of doing and still expect to maintain unit cohesion and morale. Human cognition simply doesn't work that way. Questioning every last thing your commander does is not conducive to keeping everyone alive after bad things happen. Sometimes you have to pick a leader and some followers, execute an imperfect plan to the best of your ability, and then live, or not, with the results. It's tribalism with a specific purpose in mind, but no better methods have worked well enough to merit changing it.
When we did things that the commander thought were particularly contentious or dangerous, he or she would ask the crew for input, because any commander who merely expects to live through their decision making process is not so self-absorbed as to think that nobody else could possibly have useful input to make dangerous tasks somewhat less dangerous. Most commanders probably questioned themselves, along with their superiors, to the degree that everybody else questioning them was superfluous. The entire reason commanders are selected based upon aptitude (in the Navy testing never ends for anyone, ever) and experience (having been both a follower and a leader responsible for less demanding organizational tasks) is that you actually have to do a task more than once to understand how it works and what can go wrong. This doesn't mean that the correct lessons will have been learned in all cases, but this holds true often enough to be a rule of thumb.
The Captain of the first ship I was on stood up in front of the entire crew and asked them if there were things that we could do better to clean and maintain the material condition of our ship, for example. If the ideas were reasonably logical and practical to do, then they were implemented without much fuss. We managed to spend a lot less time cleaning the ship by coming up with better methods for doing it, and spent a lot more time fixing everything that was broken. If the ship ever found itself on the receiving end of enemy fire, which is admittedly unlikely, then having a ship that at least starts its mission with all of the major systems functioning properly is infinitely preferable to one that does not. To the astonishment of no one, everyone wanted their ship to function properly. There was no disagreement on that point.
People who make good commanders are constantly asking themselves the following question:
"No matter how good my plan seems to me or anyone else, what would the result be everything went horribly wrong and how can I reasonably prevent that worst from happening?"
Generally speaking, a "good solution" starts with simple plans, realistic training intended to reduce the most likely casualties or failure modes, trust amongst leaders and their subordinates that everyone knows their job and is doing it, and judicious application of "mid-course corrections" when, not if, the plan starts to fail. While nobody can account for and prepare for every possible undesirable outcome, a prudent person will identify every activity or part of "the plan" that's highly likely to get everyone killed and then start working backwards to adapt the training and responses to the expected enemy activity or operating environment. When it comes to planning, the enemy gets a vote and the environment gets a vote in the matter. Avoiding disaster is primarily about accepting that while the unexpected will inevitably happen, any failure highly likely to end the mission needs to have a contingency plan. This is exactly why so much focus is placed upon launch activities and landings. Those are quite plainly the most dangerous parts of space missions in terms of casualties produced. We've operated space stations in the LEO shooting gallery of incoming space debris and radiation for decades and never managed to remotely approach the number of crew killed during launches and landings.
As far as diversity is concerned, it's not a de-facto strength or weakness, despite all claims to the contrary. The diversity either adds something tangible to the mission goals or it doesn't. Diversity adds something to the US military because no matter where we go in the world, we have someone who looks like the people who live there and can speak their language. The same applies to having women in the military. If you care at all about keeping your people alive, that's important.
That said, putting anyone in a position who is not qualified and capable of performing their job, that your training program can reasonably produce, is a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who is squeamish about pulling the trigger or unable to carry a heavy load has no business being in the infantry, for example. If that prevents certain people from having that job, then so be it. You did them and everyone relying on them a favor by not pushing them beyond their mental and physical limits. Even people who start out being capable of the job may not be by the time their service ends, hence the never-ending testing. In short, knowing who's capable and who's not is very difficult to properly evaluate. Combat is definitely not an appropriate Petri dish for social experiments, nor is a mission tens of millions of miles from Earth in some of the most hostile environments where humans with cutting edge technology might feasibly be able to live.
Hiring people on the basis of superficial physical characteristics in order to score brownie points with people who don't have to live with the results, is bad policy, plain and simple. The only type of affirmative action I support is that we affirm that our hiring practices will be based upon aptitude, interest, and effort. You need to be good at your job (physically and psychologically capable of doing it), devoted to doing it well (not prone to giving up or pitching fits when things don't go your way), and you need to be willing to put in the elbow grease to get the job done (dogged determination to get it done right).
The reason there are more men than women in STEM is that more women are interested in PEOPLE than THINGS, and vice versa for men. There are more women who are teachers for that same reason. Despite having a STEM education, my own wife decides who to work for based upon whether or not she likes socializing with the people she works with. Contrary to claims from engineers and mechanics, you can't have much of a relationship with a machine, so for people looking for relationships with other people, inanimate objects don't do much for them. The reason there are more men than women in prison is called testosterone- that biologically-generated chemical that creates large muscles and aggressive behavior. No matter who you inject with that chemical, man or woman, it has the same effect, as if basic biology doesn't care about beliefs related to sex / gender at all. Some of this stuff is so painfully obvious that any attempt at denial is facially absurd, not that that stops people who sort for differences from trying. It doesn't mean men are inherently smarter and more violent than women, nor that women are inherently better teachers or care givers. There's an endless number of completely individualistic variables that determine stuff like that. There's scant evidence of "this type of person is better at X", at a species-level scale. It does mean that at the extreme ends of the scale, you're never going to have the world's strongest woman who is stronger than the world's strongest man. You're never going to have more women who are violent criminals than men- something that all of humanity should be thankful for. You're going to have vanishingly few women who find fulfillment being stuck in a server closet pouring over data, even though they clearly exist.
Valuation is always highly contentious and subjective, but objectively men don't survive without women and women don't survive without men and children don't do well at all without both. No amount of mental gymnastics aimed at finding an exception will change that fact. In very harsh environments, we work with each other (as humans, not men vs women, black vs white, gay vs hetero vs identifies as a toaster, Christian vs Jew vs Islam vs atheist, nor any other superficial individual differences. Instead of worrying about nonsense like that, we must play to our strengths and rely on others to mitigate our weaknesses. That typically means you need a good mix or cross-section of society to accomplish that, so some kind of diversity is required, or the mission fails. The fact that we are all so very different, while simultaneously indistinguishably similar in many other ways, is not an actual problem. We didn't make it as far as we have without a lot of cooperation and dealing with failure in constructive ways.
As I suggested earlier in the thread - it would be best initially to restrict the discussion to the first 10 years. You must have missed that.
But even with a later settlement of 1000 people plus these issues will still be around. It's going to take at least a couple of decades before we can be sure how safe it is to take pregnancies to full term on Mars. But we could well have 1000 people on Mars within 10-15 years.
The most important central issue is "Under whose authority are rules being made?" If the answer is "Under the authority of the US Constitution" that gives you one set of answers (essentially - the rules that apply in the USA, also apply to the people on Mars). If the answer is "Space X make the rules" that will lead to some interesting debates. If the answer is "The rules comply with the OST and that is all that is required because the OST is the only set of rules that currently apply to Mars" then that is another ball game.
louis,
Are we talking about first exploration mission, with say 8 crew? Or settlement with 1,000 people or more? Big difference. I'm talking later settlement with at least one city and multiple towns.Mars Direct includes individual cabins, with walls. Of course that was for 4 crew. Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) is a simulation with cabins for 6 crew. Basically 3 bunk beds, with each bunk sealed off into a very small cabin. MDRS has a domed roof, above the cabins there's an attic for a caretaker to sleep. Of course my criticism of MDRS is that it makes full use of both floors (decks). For a real Mars hab, lower deck would be mostly sold equipment. But the point is these walls do provide some sound insulation.
http://mdrs.marssociety.org/wp-content/ … 68x498.pngPregnancy: exploration crew will have to be selected for individuals sufficiently professional that they won't get pregnant. Yes, I'm putting responsibility on everyone involved. But for permanent settlement, even the first one-way crew, pregnancy will be a big deal and very welcome.
Drugs an alcohol: you realize Russians somehow managed to smuggle vodka onto the Mir space station. The first American astronaut to spend 6 months on Mir, Shannon Lucid, found during the time cosmonauts were supposed to be exercising, they were drinking. Cosmonauts had to be carried out of their Soyuz capsule on return to Earth, but Shannon was able to walk off Shuttle and take an inspection walk around the Shuttle after landing. It became such an issue that Russians provided food tubes (look like toothpaste tubes) labelled vodka but actually contained borscht. I wouldn't be surprised if someone smuggled vodka onto ISS. They still get their job done.
I have a lot of sympathies with your sympathies but I'd make the following points:
1. Does the right to have sex include having sex in a way that intrudes upon others e.g. having sex in public, having very loud sex etc.? This could certainly be an issue in the early years of a colony where people are living very closely together, with maybe just curtained off sleeping areas. Also, the issue of consent can become blurred. If you have a hierarchical structure, will it be permissible for the Commanding Officer or Mission Leader to have relations with other subordinate crew members?
2. I think pregnancy is the bigger issue than abortion. If a woman becomes pregnant and refuses to abort her foetus/child then that could represent a very serious threat to the mission, certainly Mission One. Essentially you could be losing a team member for some vital tasks but you would also face what could amount to a medical emergency. What if the woman is going to give birth just at the time you are ready to launch the return Starship? Even after Mission One, it's going to be a difficult issue to address until we know for sure that foetuses can develop normally in the womb on Mars (highly questionable that will be the case in low G).
3. Drugs and alcohol...the difference here is that everyone in a pressurised environment is much more vulnerable. That's one of the reasons why we treat drunkness on an airplane differently from drunkeness on the street or in a bar. We are far less tolerant of inebriation on an airplane, even though we do allow alcohol to be consumed. There have been plenty of examples of people off their heads on drink and/or drugs trying to open the cabin door at 30,000 feet. Similarly someone might try and open an airlock.
For me, these issues really mean that Space X will need to devise employment contracts that as far as they can address these issues. For instance I think they should specify that no employee will become pregnant while on Mars or seek to make someone pregnant while on Mars. They will probably have to plead some sort of constitutional exception...similar to that which applies to the military if the contracts are ever challenged in the US courts. But the main lesson is to ensure that every effort is put into team selection.
Regarding say drugs and alcohol, rather than seek out teetotallers I think I would be happier with finding people who do indulge in psychoactive substances but who have demonstrated that even while under influence they remain relatively responsible and under control.
Issues like sexual behaviour could probably be subsumed under more general rules on neighbourly behaviour.
Of course none of the above addresses the issue I raised as to what status any rules, contracts or other attempted controls on behaviour have on Mars. Space X could presumably declare that they are operating under OST rules, US laws or their own rules (in the absence of effective state authority on the planet).
I feel Mars must be the Libertarian Paradise. The whole point of moving to Mars is to tell government where to shove it! So my list:
Sex: do what you will. No restrictions. Casual affair? Extra-marital sex? Polygamy? Same-sex marriage? Whatever! That's between individuals involved. No government, and no rules. After all, who the hell do you think you are telling others who or how they can engage in sex?
Abortion: a woman's body is her own. No one can tell a woman what to do with her body. I could give a long winded lecture. I'll make this short: when I was a teenager in the late 1970s, this was a major issue in Canada. I looked into it. (I'm a nerd, I research stuff.) The thing that makes humans unique (different than animals) is our mind. That's a function of the brain. The Cerebrum is the thinking portion, it doesn't start to function until after birth. When I first researched this in the late 1970s, medical knowledge said it starts to function 3 months after birth. Today doctors have found it can start to function as early as 2 weeks after birth. But it cannot function before birth, because any interconnections between cells (dendrites/axons) would be torn asunder by the baby's head being squeezed through the birth canal. So a human life starts at birth, not before. Before birth the fetus is tissue. Sorry religious fanatics, but that's the science.
Drugs and alcohol: do what you will. It's your body, you can do whatever you want. That means alcohol, marijuana, and even hard drugs will be legal. Prescriptions drugs could be purchased without a doctor's prescription. Of course there won't be free medical care, so if you screw yourself up, you have to pay for it. And if you show up to work either drunk or high, that's grounds for summary dismissal. That's a fancy word for you're fired on the spot, no warning. Your employer could choose to give you a warning, but it's up to him/her, not required.
Of course I have advocated a very minimal "national" government for Mars. Basic rule: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, other than that you're pretty much on your own dude! Of course there will be details: assault, battery, assault with a weapon, murder, attempted murder, theft, robbery, extortion, embezzlement, etc. Once you get layers involved, something that was simple becomes complex. But you get the point. The national government will also have a land title registry: you buy land from them. Any land not owned is free for anyone to harvest. Once owned, it's owned, need I say more? No "countries" allowed on Mars, because the national government is the only country. One nation that is the whole planet. No states, provinces, counties, shires, principality, duchy, or oblast. The last is roughly equivalent to a county in countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Municipalities will be allowed on Mars, but only that. Municipalities can be various size: village, town, city. The municipality will have to request land from the national government's land title registry. If a municipality attempts to claim as much land as a state or county, the answer will be "NO". A town will be given as much land as a town. A small city (in terms of population) will be given as much land as a small city. A large city will be given as much land as a city that size. If an individual purchases land for a homestead from the national government land title registry, then a municipality attempts to expand to include that land, the answer will be "NO". Once someone owns land, no one else can claim it. The land owner could sell to the municipality, but if the municipality attempts extortion outside municipal boundaries, then national police will step in to stop them.
Free Speech & Diversity:
I mention this because municipalities will have a great deal of authority. Within the very limited boundaries of their municipality, they will for most purposes be a City State. Free Speech and Diversity will be up to the municipality. Of course those rules will only have jurisdiction within municipal boundaries. Outside that, diddly squat!Anywhere on Mars outside a municipality: say what you want. Be what you are.
Sex, Drugs, Abortion could be restricted within a municipality as well.
For any homestead registered with / purchased from the national government land title registry: the only laws that apply are national. And those are minimal. Zero tax. The land owner really is the lord of his/her own property. And expect the land owner to have really big guns to enforce that authority.
Guns: municipalities will not be allowed to possess a military. And will not be allowed to possess weapons of war: no fighter jets, no tanks, no mortars, to land mines, no surface-to-air missiles, no missiles of any sort, no cannons, no fully automatic firearms. But municipal police can possess a revolver, or semi-automatic pistol, or shotgun, or semi-automatic rifle. Whether police possess such or are restricted to non-lethal weapons will be up to the municipality. Whether individuals within a municipality are allowed to possess weapons will be up to the municipality. Restrictions for individuals in a homestead in the "outback" will be exactly the same as a municipality. Yes, that does mean a homesteader could possess all the same weapons as police of a major city.
M6 Toll road at 43.4 Kms long has 50000 vehicles drive on it every day (mostly cars and vans). EVs travel 100 Kms for 15 KwHes of energy. Let's assume the average journey length is say 35 Kms (there are several junctions) That would give an energy demand of 5.25 KwHes per journey which would translate to 262.5 MwHes for 50,000 cars (would be higher the more you add in truck traffic - assuming they were part of such a system). That would give an average of 10.93 MwHes per hour. But traffic varies during the day and so let's assume a peak of x3 - that would give a peak of nearly 33 MwHes.
But of course, vehicles won't arrive at the toll road with empty batteries. They will have been charging en route. So is that amount of power required.
This is a lot more complicated than I thought!
Will the induction system be able to "talk" to the EVs? - so be able to assess whether an EV has a low battery that needs continues charging along a stretch of road? It might be important for the induction system to "ration" power during peak periods in this way.
I've always been wary of hydrogen as a "solution" given the storage issues. I would still like to see some work done on the cost of manufacturing methane from air and water using surplus green energy which has an effective marginal cost of zero when grid operators won't take it. It is currently just earthed. If we used that energy to manufacture methane, how much would it cost? I did look into that once and the best guesstimate I could come up with was maybe something like 25 cents per KwHe of power produced. Sounds high but if you are using that only to cover low wind-solar energy days, that might be only 10% of the year's energy production (about 30 full days) and you don't have to cover 100% of wind and solar, since you can ramp up other energy e.g. energy from waste, hydro, tidal, and bio fuels to close some of the gap. If your wind-solar energy is priced at 2 cents per KwHe and produces 80& of overall energy in one year, 10% comes from other green sources at 8 cents per KwHe and 10% from manufactured methane at 25 cents per KwHe the overall average price would be 4.9 cents per KwHe - a respectable figure, comparable with using natural methane now.
louis wrote:If you factor in the financial and environmental costs of heavy batteries in EVs then this system's benefits soon become clear. How much cheaper would a car with 10% of the normal battery weight be? I'd say at least 25% cheaper since batteries are such a large component of the cost. The EV would be far less polluting as well due to the reduced weight on the tyres. Not only that but it would be a much better driver experience - never having to worry about running out of fuel on a long journey.
You don't have to cover every mile of road. You have sections of inductive charging every few miles. I don't know how long the sections would be - I would guess something like 10 miles long every 100 miles on a motorway (about 12 mins at 70mph) but more like a top-up for short sections on other main roads.
The road power supply would need to be continuous on trunk roads, especially if this is intended to power heavy trucks. Those things can draw hundreds of kW each. If you have driven on the M25 or M6 during daylight hours, and I bet you have, you will have seen the traffic levels that this sort of system would need to be rated for. You are taking up to 100 vehicles per km. Total engine power of all those trucks and cars will be more than 1MW.
Regarding Denmark and Netherlands, both have plans to install hydrogen electrolysis stacks at existing gas turbine powerplants. The idea is to use excess power to generate hydrogen that can be stored in tanks and then used to reduce natural gas consumption when demand exceeds supply. It is an effort to reduce the huge cross-border power flows that are now threatening grid stability in Northern Europe. Given the constraints that they face in terms of power supply variability, the high cost of battery storage, shrinking supplies of natural gas; this is an appropriate solution, that mitigates several problems simultaneously using mostly existing power infrastructure. But it has limitations.
It is not possible to use this sort of system to store days or weeks worth of power, because of the low density of hydrogen gas. The idea is for electrolysis to even out some of the short term variability, allowing natural gas to continue providing the bulk of backup energy supply. Round trip efficiency is between 20-40%, depending upon the operating conditions of the CCGTs. But it is better than just throwing the electricity away. And both backup and storage use the same powerplant which reduces capital costs. It isn't quite so simple as just switching between natural gas and hydrogen. Natural gas has three times the energy density of H2 under standard conditions. So hydrogen will probably need to be blended with natural gas to get the flame characteristics right for the burners and for the GT to operate at heavy load. But it is a more integrated system than trying to have separate backup and storage plants. I don't think anyone knows how much it is going to cost yet. It is an effort to reduce, rather than eliminate, European reliance on natural gas. And it will work within its limitations.
My point earlier in this thread was that more cost effective technologies have ended up being sidelined due to political idealism. Idealistic people tend to gravitate towards idealistic solutions. The Dutch hydrogen experiment is an example of using existing technology to mitigate a problem in a way that is affordable given the infrastructure already in place. We need more thinking like that in the years ahead. As fossil fuel ERoEI continues to decline, the effect on Western economies has been a slow erosion of prosperity, which has been papered over by rising levels of debt and currency inflation. Ideas that reduce fossil fuel consumption with the minimum of new capital outlay stand a better chance of success in this situation than expensive solutions that require entirely new technology and a radical redesign of electric grids and transport systems. Very soon, we will find that the money no longer exists for large scale systematic change.
At the moment, zero interest rates and large scale quantitative easing, have distorted the economics of energy supply by making capital cost considerations almost irrelevant. This will end very quickly when inflation picks up and central banks are forced to raise interest rates to bolster the value of currencies. A lot of cherished assumptions about cost reductions in new technology will die at this point. Suddenly, capital costs will matter once again and governments and commercial interests will be attempting to stay afloat servicing debts that have suddenly become very heavy. Idealistic projects, like electric roads, solar power plants, electric charging infrastructure, will disappear off of the political radar. They will be interested in options for keeping the system running, that involve the minimum cost for all involved. I think a lot of idealistic people are going to be disappointed when it turns out that we are still using ICE vehicles in 2040. Very likely, hybrid systems will be used to reduce fuel consumption. But the economic environment ten years from now will not be conducive to massive new infrastructure investment.
Here's the tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1386836238771105793
SN 15 was successfully static fired, and Musk stated that the rocket will fly "this week."
I saw reference in a thread to "legal challenges". Are these from local residents affected by noise and other disturbance do we know?
And yet these technologies can deliver energy at below 2 cent per KwHe...
I notice you put in the caveat "it's not economical to separate them in most cases"... how often have we heard these stories over the years.
I've lived through:
"PV power is horrendously expensive and can never compete with fossil fuels or nuclear power". Total bollox. Now often 4 to 7 cents cheaper per KwH.
"Batteries will never be able to part of grid operations. They are too expensive and too weak." Now we regularly see battery installations backing up solar or wind power in order to deliver much more reliable power supply to a grid.
"Green energy can never deliver reliable power 24/7 every day." We are seeing now that this also is false. Denmark has a well developed plan to combine wind energy production with hydrogen (from electrolysis) to provide a 100% reliable energy solution.
SpaceNut,
All of the dead batteries will be turned into metal alloys because the mix of elements is so complete that it's not economical to separate them in most cases. These long ribbons of human-hair thickness active material in modern Lithium-ion batteries are great for energy density, despite being nowhere near what they need to be to compete with gasoline, but terrible for recyclability. The can is made from one material, the anode and cathode of different alloys, the electrolyte contains another material, and the separators are plastic. You can probably create a machine that can recycle it, but putting one together is intentionally nowhere near as easy as taking one apart. The ultimate solution is to either use much smaller batteries with fewer cells in the pack, in much smaller vehicles intended for daily commuting, such as the Microlino, or to develop very efficient small combustion engines that are also placed into much smaller daily commuters.
As you so often point out, isn't it funny how virtually none of our "energy saving" technological advancements have ultimately saved any energy?
I'm sure they decreased the rate of increase of energy consumption, but that seems to be the limit of what they can do. I've been spending a lot of time on that "Low-Tech Magazine" website you've linked to numerous times. It's really made me think a lot about what we're doing and if we're actually making our energy consumption problems worse. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a trap.
The Difficult One - I'm quoting a Monty Python* book from the 1970s there, which was referencing what used to be called the Sin of Onan...(I don't think they will get anywhere trying to ban that on Mars!).
[*UK comedy show that most people in the US and English speaking world know about.]
Yes, this is a thread devoted to addressing the really difficult issues - not how the hell do you get a rocket to work properly (that's relatively easy) but how on Earth/Mars do you get human beings to work together in something like genuine harmony.
Humans are social primates, given to violent reactions, hysterical group behaviour and constant status battles. So it's not easy to establish harmony.
[For the purposes of this thread, let's restrict discussion to the first 10 years of human settlement. ]
Here are some of the issues that I think need to be addressed:
- General point - what is the status of a "rule" on Mars. Supposing it's Space X who gets there first - most likely, Musk can make up any rules he likes but what status do the rules have? Do they have higher status than the constitutional liberties of an American for instance? Does the act of leaving Earth rob the individual of their constitutional rights? Oldfart has talked about a command structure for a Mars Mission. Well yes - but was is the legal basis for that command structure?
- Sexual relations. Will they be allowed officially? If so, to what extent. It's easy on Earth to say "any consenting sexual relations are allowed" but in the close confines of a small base this could be problematic. Noisy "rough" sex or SM style sex could create problems. And in the very early stages of colonisation the risk that sexual jealousy could disrupt team efficiency is very real. Should we be thinking in terms of creating sex habs where those who wish to release their sexual urges can go and enjoy themselves?
- Pregnancy/abortion. What happens if a woman gets pregnant as a result of a permitted or unpermitted relationship? Can anyone stop her going to full term? How would you stop her even if that were permitted? Alternatively should you be able to facilitate her abortion even if the woman was being pressurised into abortion?
- Drugs including alcohol. How far would people be allowed to indulge in these on Mars? Drugs have been an intimate and many might say vital part of the human experience since (or before) we climbed out of the trees. All sorts of animals including elephants enjoy getting off their heads on fermented fruit. Are we going to abandon thousands of years of drug-induced creativity (nearly all musicians, writers and artitists - if not scientists - have been attracted to drugs over the millennia)?
- Free speech. How far will free speech apply on Mars? In the armed forces such a constitutional right is extremely restricted. I expect people who see Mars colonisation as a command structure operation will want to restrict free speech. Alternatively those who see it as a collaborative civilian endeavour will want to preserve it, as vital to the whole enterprise. I'd like to suggest that what needs to be put in place is strong procedures that protect free speech but, as it were, channel it. The Apollo Missions had a strong free speech tradition going in NASA - now long gone. The permissive idea was that anyone could speak up and offer their opinion (you can see how valuable that is when everything being attempted is new). I think we need to aim for something like that and ensure that if someone prevented from expressing an idea there is strong and meaningful appeal process in place (including maybe submissions back to a panel on Earth).
- Diversity. On Earth nearly all organisations now claim to be in favour of diversity but how does that translate to Mars? The very early pioneers on Mars will, of necessity, be essentially an elite - people with a range of very high level skills, with strong intellect and integrated emotions ("the right stuff"). To what extent should Space X be looking to ensure racial and gender diversity among the pioneers? Should Space X actually look to replicate the spread of IQ on Earth, or the USA? This is a very tricky area. If you want to truly represent humanity, then one in 4 pioneers will be Chinese nationals, not Americans! Obviously Space X would not go down that route. I think we have to accept there are just going to be a lot of compromises here - essentially in the initial choices a culture (modern US culture) is going to be represented. To take Noah's 8 pioneers I think with an 8 person mission you might have 6 US citizens. The ideal non-Ameicans would be an Indian and a South African (of colour). You will have to have at least three women but probably 4. There must be at least one gay male person and one lesbian. At least one person must be African-American and it would be nice to have someone who can claim to be part Native American more convincingly than some US Presidential candidates . You'd probably have a Chinese American and Indian American as well as part of the US citizen contingent/ At least one person should have some sort of observable disability e.g. a withered arm that doesn't affect their contribution to the mission too much.
Any observations on the above or any other "difficult ones" that people want to discuss?
I've been thinking for a while, as the reality of settling Mars approaches, we need a thread on some "difficult" subjects: sex, drugs (alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogenics etc), religion (particularly religious observance in the early colony), pregnancy/abortion, free speech,
vaccination, screening for disabilities etc
I think I'll do that now.
RobertDyck wrote:This is an area that NASA management has traditionally been obsessed. American culture is obsessed with sex, but upper class elites like to pretend they have Puritan values. NASA wanted to prohibit any sexual activity what so ever for the reasons you state. When the International Space Station was built, there were other countries involved. The European Space Agency brings European values. They are quite adamant about this: what adults do on their own time is their business. Management has no business telling adults what they can or cannot do with sex. So policy for ISS was established (at least as released to members of the public like me) that space agencies cannot dictate sexual activity or lack thereof to astronauts. They can insist that astronauts be discrete, and the emphasis is that individuals must be professionals at all times, they must be able to continue to work together. European representatives treated NASA's attitude toward sex as adolescent, not mature. As if Americans have never learned how to grow up.
One Space Shuttle mission did have a married couple on the same mission. They went into space together. Many people have speculated what happened up there. However, the crew cabin of Shuttle is actually quite small. If anything did happen, absolutely everyone on the Shuttle would have heard everything.That a good side note, I will also include it.
-
Sources from post #318 (Books:)
Mars Prospect Energy and Material Resources
Mars - Wie wir den roten Planeten besiedeln
Use of extraterrestrial resources for human space missions to moon or Mars-
Oldfart1939 wrote:I'm certainly willing to set up and **own** such a topic. I looked at what Noah has written and his thoughts are in a way, similar to mine, but from a different approach in reaching his conclusions.
I also think that would be a good idea. Then we would have two approaches, which makes things more interesting.
It does make economic sense!
If you factor in the financial and environmental costs of heavy batteries in EVs then this system's benefits soon become clear. How much cheaper would a car with 10% of the normal battery weight be? I'd say at least 25% cheaper since batteries are such a large component of the cost. The EV would be far less polluting as well due to the reduced weight on the tyres. Not only that but it would be a much better driver experience - never having to worry about running out of fuel on a long journey.
You don't have to cover every mile of road. You have sections of inductive charging every few miles. I don't know how long the sections would be - I would guess something like 10 miles long every 100 miles on a motorway (about 12 mins at 70mph) but more like a top-up for short sections on other main roads.
They are trialling wireless systems where your EV communicates with the induction system and you can be automatically billed for the energy you extract. That would be best sort of system in my view.
Road surface are remade every few years in any case as part of general maintenance so you could combine your induction charging installation with the usual road maintenance - that would help lower cost.
Inductive coupling? I can't see that being affordable for tens of thousands of km of roadway. It means having copper induction coils embedded in the road.
https://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/ … ystem.html
From this article, they are suggesting $12.5 million for a 1mile section of road. It doesn't tell us if that is in both directions.
For heavy trucks and buses, catenary electrification is established technology. This is how trams are powered for example. Something similar would work for heavy vehicles on trunk roads. I don't see what inductive power transfer adds for these type of vehicles. A catenary will deliver far more power.
My understanding of the induction systems is that they react with the vehicle and that it is in fact quite safe to walk on them. I recall trials with them being used at bus stops. So, as far as I am aware, the induction systems can be built into a variety of main roads.
So it's not like an exposed third rail on a rail system.
Electrified roads. This would appear to me to be a better idea than long-range battery electric, as the materials involved are steel, ferritic iron, aluminium alloy, smaller amounts of copper and power electronics. All quite common materials, already mass produced and relatively cheap. The technology is more easily scalable for this reason. It is quite telling that electric transportation in the form of electric railways, trams and underground systems, has been around for over 100 years. It is already a primary means of transportation in many countries and most large cities. But it is almost exclusively grid-powered. Grid connected vehicles have big advantages over battery powered, in terms power-weight ratio, capital cost and range.
Electrified roads would be mostly confined to motorways and dual carriageways. No one in their right mind crosses these on foot anyway. The cost of electrification for railways was estimated to be about £1 million per track-km back in the late 90s. Not sure about now, but this is a similar concept, so once it is fully developed costs should be similar.
One thing that may make this more costly than its advocates anticipate: transformer stations. Because the electrified strip is attached to the ground, voltage must be kept low in order to avoid earthing faults. I mean no more than a few hundred volts between two phases and no more than a couple of hundred volts above ground. The problem this introduces is that to deliver a reasonable amount of power requires high current, which necessitates either very thick conductors or very regular transformer stations along the road. The UK's DC third rail network suffers similar problems. The track voltage is 750 volts. To deliver a power of 3MW, which is what Eurostar trains draw from the track, requires that the third rail carry currents up to 4000 amps. You will notice that third rails are quite thick. This helps to keep electrical resistance manageable. Even so, to avoid excessive voltage drop, transformer stations must be positioned every mile along the track in urban areas and every three miles on less busy routes. The Swedish electric strips are much thinner than third rails. This limits their current carrying capacity. The need for low voltage will further limit the power that can be delivered by the system. Let's say we use aluminium alloy strips with three times better conductivity than steel, with one tenth the cross-section of a third rail and voltage between poles of 250v, say. The strip could still deliver a respectable 300KW. Maybe enough to provide full power to an HGV under acceleration conditions 300-400kw), maybe three of them driving at steady speed 60mph.
Transformer stations would need to be spaced depending upon anticipated traffic levels. It is the need for regular transformer stations powering the local track that makes DC third rail relatively expensive and unsuitable for heavy freight. Likewise, the electric road as it is described, would be more suitable for cars than heavy freight vehicles. Rating the road for heavy freight would be more expensive than electrifying it for cars. I don't think electrifying roads will be cheap. But this is probably the only way mass car culture will be sustainable at all in a pure electric system.
The most obvious way to reduce the cost of Electric Vehicles is to reduce the cost of batteries and the most obvious way to reduce the cost of the batteries in an EV is to reduce the mass of batteries in an EV - and the easiest way to do that is to have Electric Roads ie induction charging as you drive along. This could be fitted to sections of motorways and A roads so that the vast majority of people would never be more than ten minutes away from an electric road section. The cost of converting roads to induction charging is not prohibitive.
Converting to electric roads is not actually that expensive (even without taking into account savings on EV cost). The technology seems to work.
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/tr … evolution/
If batteries could be reduced to 10% of current size - maybe to give you a range of 30 miles without electric roads - that would have a huge impact on cost. Remember the fuel and maintenance costs of EVs are significantly lower than with fossil fuel cars.
On the question of the cost of cars more generally it has to surely be the case that the life of a car is now much longer .They don't turn into rust buckets after 5 years and seem to be much more reliable.
Indeed, SpaceNut. This problem is not unique to the US. In the UK, most cars are now purchased using mortgage type arrangements. The price of new cars has increased dramatically over the past several years. They are becoming less and less affordable to the average man.
I think car companies and politicians that come out with clueless statements like 'all electric by 2030' and 'combustion engines to be banned within 15 years' need to think carefully about what they are trying to achieve. If the goal is to reduce emissions then there needs to be serious thought about the most cost effective way of doing that. There are all sorts of technical solutions that engineers could use to produce an affordable car with lower CO2 emissions. But most of these are now being ignored, because some idiot politico thought that banning IC engines by 2030, sounded like a good piece of virtue signalling. Why are these idiot politicians telling engineers how to do their jobs?
I agree. I think it makes sense for at least the first 4 Misssions to take your habs with you, ready made.
Then over the next few missions, you might start trials with ISRU construction. The most promising I have seen have been the robotic laying down of cement structures. Cut and cover using Mars brick might be used for artificially lit farm habs.
Air locks will be a crucial design element. It may be necessary to import those for a while longer until Mars has a well developed steel industry. On the other hand, we might be able to address that issue with industrial scale 3D printers.
The trouble with building and especially remotely from support trains is the issue of time, quantities of what types of payloads can be moved. It will always come back to the planned steps to achive the final goal and must start with the first step, to the next and so forth fully itemized as to what happens when.
Regarding labour time allocation, I would say anything from 2005 or before is way out of date.
If you google on "farm robots" or "mining robots" you will see there are now a huge range of robotic machines that can take over from human labour. There was an assumption in the past that, as on the moon, there would be a lot of EVA activity on the surface with crew in spacesuits (and it used to take 180 minutes to get in and out of a space suit). That's no longer going to be necessary. The pioneers can largely stay in their pressurised vehicles and supervise various robot vehicles undertaking tasks like digging for water ice, drilling into and colecting the ice and then transporting it back to the propellant plant. We also have functional "fetch and carry robots" from Boston Dynamics that Space X are already using. The likelihood is they could be made to perform well on Mars as well.
In addition there have been huge advances in 3D printers and the capabilities of industrial robots are well established.
Put it all together and I think the amount of labour time required for survival on Mars has been greatly reduced. However, on the debit side, Space X's plan to relaunch a Starship to return to Earth is likely to consume a huge amount of labour time. Every centimetre of the rocket is going to have to be checked out and all systems will need to be tested pre launch, as far as they can be.
CREW SIZE
From a moral point of view, the number of crew members should be kept small. But what is actually even more important than keeping the crew small is keeping the crew safe! So in order to achieve the mission objective, do science, and bring the crew back safely, there are several requirements for the crew. There are four critical factors that affect crew size:
First, there are personnel requirements, which primarily include scientific and technical skills. Second, there is the workload, which should be an interplay of productive work as well as rest breaks. Third is psychological factor. A mission that lasts over 2.5 years will bring some problems, mainly due to confinement and isolation. Fourth is the composition of the crew, should it be more homogeneous or heterogeneous (in terms of nationality, gender, age and experience).Personnel requirements
A minimum crew for operations, maintenance, and overhead is needed, about 2 to 3 people. The mission critical person would definitely be a mechanic for the electrical systems or life support systems. The lives of the crew would depend on his/her skills. Therefore, this person should be an experienced mechanic with hands-on skills to troubleshoot most problems. A person or rather persons with medical skills are also irreplaceable. All crew members need basic medical knowledge and are trained in first aid.
Further, a field scientist/geologist would also be needed to explore the Martian landscape to find resources for the ISRU and to understand the history of Mars. Further, a geologist would be needed to find new evidence to answer the question of past or present life.
A partial list for mission jobs might include:
Technological Skills:
Commander
Spacecraft Engineer
Manufacturing Engineer
Navigation
Communication
Software Engineering
Scientific skills:
Geology
Biology
Medicine
Atmosphere
Meteorology
Astronomy
It is not necessary to bring an expert for each field. It is not necessary to bring a "pilot" or commander. Yes, we need them, but a commander could be mainly a mechanic who has the skills to lead the crew. Redundancy is needed to make the mission as safe as possible. The mission critical people should definitely be at least dual. So the crew maximum would be all 12 skills plus redundancy in the mission critical people, which would be around 20 people.Workload
In the 1970s, there was a "Skylab mission" where the astronauts had a tough schedule. For this reason, the crew went on strike for one day. Therefore, a good time segment is very important.
To determine the workload, it is useful to note what work needs to be done and what should be done. All issues related to safety and life support have the highest priority, followed by exploration and science.
There have been several studies on the workload and psychological effects in a Mars-like environment such as in the Arctic/Antarctica, in low Earth orbit, in isolation chambers, and in underwater submarines.
After landing on Mars, the first month will likely be the hardest. There are three options for the building: 1. bring the whole building, 2. print the building in advance, or 3. build it on site, after landing. Regardless of which case occurs, the team will have a heavy workload. They will need to install power supplies and life support systems. If they are a larger team, they can divide the work more efficiently, but they will also have to do more work. In such a case, with a shortage of people, a larger crew at the top end (about ~ 16) is better. However, this should not happen so often, so such a large team would probably be superfluous. The team then moves into the maintenance phase, which is more repetitive but also more demanding. This would mainly involve cleaning and repairs. Coinciding with the start of science and exploration. Lamamy et al. (2005) noted that for a four-person crew, probably 80% of the crew time would be devoted to self-maintenance and about 20% of the crew time would be devoted to science and exploration. With a crew of six, this ratio would possibly change to 60-40. It should be noted that these numbers are quite subjective at this early stage. However, with a larger crew, the ratio would allow more room for science and exploration. So with a crew of 8 or more, the crew would have plenty of time for science and would not be constantly engaged in self-maintenance.
What also needs to be considered is the schedule of how and when the crew operates. For example, the ISS crew gets a schedule from the Earth crew, and that works well. But on Mars, a response from the Earth crew would take about 40 minutes because of the long distance. Accordingly, the crew has to operate largely autonomously. This also has an impact on various other psychological factors.Psychological factors
The aforementioned studies also collected useful data on psychological factors. They are listed in total in Table 3. I will only go through the most important points. The results were all similar: most crew members had a pleasant and harmonious time. Nevertheless, they all missed their family/friends, or unfamiliar faces and other things. One of the biggest hurdles was isolation and confinement. Constantly next to others and almost no space of their own. They also found that larger crews have a higher rate of deviance and conflict than smaller crews. Therefore, crew size should be kept small in terms of psychological aspects. But still many psychological aspects are not well researched. For example, the earth-out-of-sight phenomenon. It is not clear how much the crew is affected by this phenomenon.
Composition
Composition is in terms of nationality, gender, age, and experience. In general, deviance and conflict increased with mission duration, with the deviance peak in the tired quarter. Dudley - Rowley investigation of teams respond in a heterogeneity or homogeneity group. Heterogeneity differentiates people from each other, this makes thinking about a long duration more interesting. However, they start with higher levels of deviance, conflict, and dysfunction - but they decrease. Perhaps this is how some innovative solutions emerge, because of the different skills and experiences. In homogeneous teams, the start was quite comfortable. After the middle to the end of the third quarter, conflicts increase sharply. Especially gender plays a role in the composition. To date, there has been no systematic research on the behavior and performance of mixed- and same-sex groups that arise under confinement and isolation. Nevertheless, there are several risks associated with sexual activity:
formation of couples
interpersonal tensions due to jealousy
sexual deprivation can be harder to bear in the presence of people perceived as sexually attractive
sexual harassment
unwanted pregnancy
Only the last risk cannot be associated with homosexuality, but the other one can. So this does not make a same-sex group more favorable. There are also some proposals to send married couples on a Mars mission, but this does not seem realistic, as high technical skills are required.So how many should go and in what constellation?
Based on the facts, an eight-person crew consisting of a mixed & heterogeneous team seems most likely. A crew of eight allows for a dedicated crewmember for the most critical function, while still allowing for some redundancy in capability coverage and still keeping the mission feasible and affordable.
With a smaller crew, there would likely not be enough time for science and would lead the mission primarily to a survival camp. A crew with more people, say 11 or 12, would also seem reasonable. But there are two main reasons for a smaller crew: the first is to keep the payload as small as possible to allow for a realistic price. In the past, most attempts failed not because of technical problems but because of lack of funds. Second is a moral consideration: regardless of any safety precautions, this mission will be extremely risky. Therefore, the number of crew should be kept to a minimum for the first mission.
The idea that masks contribute to reduced risk of infection or transmission is totally unproven. You only have to see people fiddling with their masks all the time to know that in the real world masks encouraging people to touch their mouth and nose areas - which will be saturated with virus if they are infected, after which they touch surfaces.
Masks are also dangerous, in terms of inhaling plastic particles, reducing oxygenation and inhibiting expulsion of harmful pathogens.
And in a modern society you can't lockdown effectively. If you did people would be dying of starvation within a week. The reality in the UK is that during lockdown out of a population of 68 million, 11 million people were still travelling into places of work. Those 11 million will be mixing with another 15 million in households and the combined 26 million will have been mixing with the remainder of the population in supermarkets, petrol stations etc.
Not everyone that is infected sheds the virus in the same particulate levels as another. That said its more than breathing that causes one to become infected....
Disinfecting cleaners, masks as well as distance are the means to slow and reduce the risk. Being outside with air flow and natural sun light are also another level of risk reducing conditions. Another for inside are the UV lights and air circulating vents are another.
CNN = Corrupt Non News.
It's not "Republicans". It's the relevant state authorities.
The election that just will not end to say that Trump won...
Arizona Republicans are conducting a baffling and completely secretive recount of the 2020 election
Jeez! The guy's 78. Most people who are 78 haven't been working at full stretch or even at all for at least the last ten years! We all know people do their best stuff in the middle ages when they have the knowledge and the experience and still the energy. Not when they will soon be embarking on their ninth decade on the planet.
The idea as to how anyone thought he would be an appropriate nominee is beyond me - except it's clearly all politics and corruption. The Chinese must be having another good old laugh at the useless Yanks.
NASA is a total joke now. The glory days of the 60s are long behind. This confirms it.
But Space X do still need them for coms and for mapping. Just hope that Space X can somehow use them without getting sucked into the Black Hole that is NASA.
Robert, you claim:
"The point is artificial gravity prevents medical problems. "
I don't think we know that. We've never had anyone in centrifugal (or is it centripetal?) 1G as far as I know. Can't be done on Earth can it?
And hasn't been done in space yet.
Only when we've had a 6 month trial will we know what the effects are. Centrifugal force is totally artificial - it's like being thrown against a floor 24/7 and nothing to do with gravitons. So two totally different experiences.
But I think Space X have made the sensible decision not to go down that road. We know people have lived in zero G for well over a year on the ISS without any serious negative health effects and now we know how to prevent bone and muscle loss.
We don't know the effects of 0.38 G on the human body but I think we can take an educated guess it's better than 0G.
