New Mars Forums

I agree 100% that there needs to be some kind of visible support shown for the 2002 space act.  This could be our
window of opportunity simply because the legislature is going to be forced to deal with the issue and are thus most impressionable and open to ideas on space exploration right now.  If we wait until this bill gets killed and Congress goes on to more mundane things they won't really have the incentive to pay attention to us.

Is completing a sample return mission really that important
before we send people to Mars?  Someone above mentioned
logically that a sample return probe will take two years to
make the trip and that it will take probably a decade after that
to actually send someone to Mars.  After all, the best
kind of sample return mission is a manned mission.  People can do a lot better than just take a few scoops off the surface.  I don't really think a robotic sample return mission
will likely have that high of a chance of finding life or pathogens anyway since its very limited in its gathering ability.

It's funny that you mention steering an asteriod into the place
where you want to place the space elevator.  I was thinking
that it might be cool to build a space station around the space
elevator and an asteroid could make for nice shielding not
to mention the materials it would supply .  As for whether
to power the winch by fuel or solar power, I wonder if
it might be good to use both?  You could probably reduce your operating costs by only using the fuel at night and
solar by day.

I don't believe in the "right" of the state to regulate what
anyone believes absolutely irregardless of what they believe.  As for freedom of speech, well, I believe in limits only so far as libel or physical threats to an INDIVIDUAL, and not the state.  But the real crux of the problem here is political free speech.  Does an individual have the right to dissent against the political policies of the "state"?  You put the rights of the state above the rights of the individual, which by logical extension, means that if the state believes an individual is advocating political views which run contrary to those held by the state, the state has the right to ban such a person's speech.  I for one hold that the state does not have a right to ban such a person's speech, that the individuals right to express his political speech over-rides that of the state's desire to suppress his political speech.
       Basically Clark, allow me to sum up my opinions like this:
When I say I believe in an individual's freedom, I mean I believe that an individual should have political freedom from
government coercion.   I don't recognize a government's right, for instance, to institute a military draft to send people
off to die or kill against their will, even if it means such a
society is doomed, or to threaten an individual with incarceration, etc, merely for having certain political opions.  To get to the point, I believe the government only has a right to initiate force against an individual if that individual has already initiated force (by force I don't necessarily mean physical) against another person.   So in my hypothetical country, I would allow some nazi idiot to spout off his offensive political speech, but if he started building death camps to deprive other individuals of their right to exist, only then would I initiate force against said nazi scum because he initiated it first.

Certainly people get motivated into action when things
need improving, but I think the situation is somewhat reversed for Mars in that there are people who demand that social problems like starvation, homelessness, etc. be perfectly solved before we go to Mars.  To make a long statement short, I think the problem with Mars is that a lot of people seem to think we shouldn't go until we actually reach what is in their eyes a perfect society.   They seem to think that as long as "society" remains "imperfect" no money should be allocated for Mars. 
     As for having a target and an obstacle in the way, I think Zubrin basically has the right idea that if we could just get
the funding without government help our biggest obstacle
will be vanquished.  The motivation such obstacles can cause might lead to a better Mars program then if the gov't was to
just do some half-baked stroll around Mars and then forget it.

Sorry Shaun, I guess I jumped the gun.   Anyways, the arguments between the rights of the society vs. those of the
individual is an interesting off-shoot.  Personally I'll have to be the illogical one and say I support the rights of the individual
over those of the society.   I believe it's basically acting
in the best interest of society when individuals are allowed a very wide degree of political and economic freedom that
can't be abridged by the government.  What is society, after all, but the sum total of its individuals.

Interesting point about alcohol.  I read somewhere that the alcoholism rate on Antartica is like ten times higher than normal anywhere else in the world.  And I bet a Mars colony would/could develop an extreme problem with alcoholism for the same reason that Antartica does, it's a way of "coping" with the isolation and mundane.  And banning it probably won't work in the long run as people could just make their own from crops they grow.  And your definately right about
petty crime being a serious issue.  Little annoyances, like people stealing your share of the alcohol, tend to be magnified a hundred fold in environments like Antartica and undoubtedly Mars.

Mining asteroids might prove economically feasible in the far future if the outer/middle solar system is ever colonized.  It would be a lot easier just to mine what you need off asteroids than to haul raw materials all the way from Earth.  Anyways, I think it might prove more environmentally sound to mine asteroids as you won't have to rip up the Earth so much to get the materials you need.  This is why I've always been a little puzzeled why so many environmentalists hate the idea of
space flight.  Wouldn't it be better to rip up a dead rock floating in space then to compromise Earth's ecosystem?

I wonder if the Russians stripped the shuttles of all of their avionics, engines, and other high-tech components or if the shuttles are practically ready to be fueled up and launched provided someone could buy the external boosters.  If they're still flight worthy and someone buys, I know a nice little place here in my home town where we could launch it.

Peter brings up a good point about the people who choose the crew.  Above all, we have to make sure the crew is psychologically balanced enough to survive two years of extreme deprivation.  Sure, they'll likely have little things to entertain themselves with, but so did the Russian scientists who hacked each other to death over a chess game in the Antartic winter.  And Mars, and the trip there, is going to be a lot longer than a mere Antartic winter. 

   As for genders, I think both genders should be on the crew, along with a copious amount of birth control pills.

I definately hope the second option pans out, that the Chinese spur us on to Mars.  Sending people on one way trips
to Mars to die just seems defeatist and immoral. It's like admitting somehow that we're only half-capable of getting to Mars.

I think one of the pluses to Capitalism is that it has more economic freedom.  Unless your a high level bureaucrat
in a strictly Communist country, you can probably kiss goodbye trying to market any of your inventions or starting your own business.  I think this is why a mixed economy is best, I don't think a group of central planners can't really anticipate anything but the most basic needs of individuals anyway.  The standards of living don't seem to be as high.  I think people should have the freedom to market services/ideas/products with minimal red tape.