New Mars Forums

In previous threads you have said that the USA can claim the whole Moon and go on to Mars if it was to show leadership. But if you dont want hundreds of people in space what then do you want to do with these places. Any really useful increase in infrastructure and of bases will lead to an increased Human prescence in space. We will need these amounts so that we can start on medium sized infrastructure and space resource utilisation. But maybe you only want to go and visit, that is fine. Then you will have no problem with other countries going and staying and utilising what is there. Probably eventually leading to a colonisation effort to Mars minus the USA.

Not to mention they use an awful lot of antimatter?

But you are right it is allways easier for one country to do it on its own but alas there are few that can afford the cost so it goes the way it has. Id love it for the UK to have gone to space instead of cancelling its space launchers but it really did come down to not able to afford.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2005/05021021 … Spacedaily Article

With the recent floods in Venezuela it seems they have someone to blame. Its bad USA time again.

Also Last years record numbers of Hurricanes hitting the USA may happen again in 2005. Meteoroligists in the UK believe that what caused so many to strike land was an unusual high pressure front first detected in february 2004 to guide the Hurricanes to hit the USA. This Year the High pressure front has been found again and is likely to do again what happened in 2004.

Sorry no web page, but worrying as we get the shuttle ready that we could have it again delayed by these tropical storms. Not to mention the loss of life and property that these do.

This is going into the region of what would have the most political clout. I can see an SDV vehicle being used not as it is the most efficient but that it will be a sop to all those who will loose out on shuttle cancelation. We will have to deal with what appears to be a pure non man rated SDV probably broadly similar to a Shuttle C type. At least it has a decent throw weight.

What might happen is that they also go for an EELV just to transport crew. Heres hoping.

Allright the Moon treaty if countries and organisations actually adhere to it does not allow ownership. But I would arque that using the resources to develop your program is bettering mankind and also that your base has a right to be left alone and not be hindered with and so for a reasonable area around too. And if anyone has a problem they can come and look to see what you are doing  which also is a tenet of the treaty.

And a lot of countries are showing an interest in the Moon look at India or Japan or China all have plans to send probes and eventually people. When it comes down to Mars there will be spots on Mars that have more interest to the countries that go there than other spots. It should really be a case of first come first served. The country that has a base on the Martian moons will have a great spaceport to service there ships and whoever gets the Mons Olympus a great place to build a lunar Beanstalk. The problem comes down to administration and legality of these bases. And to allow all to share in the enterprise. It would hardly be ethical if as an example the Usa builds an elevator on Mons Olympus but does not allow the chinese to use it for a cost obviously and vice versa. It is when this does not happen that conflict will occur and frankly it is more likely to be in a court room than anywhere else.

The problems I have with the Moon treaty is it really appears to be a step towards a similar too law of the sea treaty which if it follows that route has basically stopped further development of the Earths oceans. And my hope is that with the general ignoring of the outer space treaty is that we go for a workable agreement to operate in space and allow semi ownership rights for areas that a country or corporation is actually working on. Or at least giving a right to mine and extract what you need.

In my opinion it is a blend of both that would prove the best way forward. Robotics will help build and explore and find the things that we need doing. But it will only be so that we can send people with the mk 1 eyeball to do the thorough job but still with robots in the background in a support role. And another technology in telerobotics will mean that we can have robots there with Human intelligence there with them.

Oh ps welcome to new Mars

It could be an asteroid pulled out of its normal orbit by a gravity well or even an extinct comet type neo. Then again it could be something really ridiculous like a drop of moisture slowly moving down the lens. Note its trail was getting smaller.

well you have to understand how the UN was designed it really is for all intents a talking shop. Its agencies like WHO have specific jobs but the actual enforcement of any resolution is done by the security council.

We have to remember that to deal with the Sudan as it should be done we would need military force on the ground. The Sudanese region we need to get to Darfur is at the opposite end of country from the sea. So we would have to come from another direction. So the military would have to have extremely long supply lines to be able to operate there.

What does this mean well frankly no country really wants to have to get involved in trying to use military force to sort out the problems. Sudan is a major supplier to the Chinese in oil etc so they would be unlikely to support armed conflict and would veto any form of sanctions. The US and UK are both stretched dealing with Iraq. So who would really want to get involved into a really expensive and probably heavy casualties police action. So what they all want is a peaceful diplomatic solution. Not me though I want those brutal goverment sponsored murderers and almost as bad Rebels properly dealt with but it is not going to happen.

But you still dont get it. Huygens is not a rover publicity stunt it had its incredibly short period of operation and needed to work fast and it took its photos in almost pitch darkness. And why waste space in putting a better camera onboard when it was a secondary part of the mission.

Ill admit that I did enjoy the new series especially the series finale of the new Battlestar Galactica.(The UK already has seen the whole series)

And since I taped the lot im going to have fun and well a lot of grumpy looks when watching it again and again.

But it has to be said that the original came out in the 1970s and was filmed for a 70s audience. Everything was a bit rose tinted and even the baddies had to look well flashy. This new series delves deeper into peoples psyche and there is no longer a black and white just a rather amount of grey shades. It is this that makes it more fun.

In this we already have such a book by John Christopher. I believe it was called no blade of grass and since a lot of our food crops are from the grass genie ie wheat, oats, rice it was about a blight that attacked these. Needless to say a lot of the worlds food production fails and with the famine and collapse of society is a very bleak book. John Christopher is famous for his children science fiction The tripods.

Sorry dicktice as for hubble it is hardly worthwhile risking human life in our astronauts to do a temporary fix for something that will die in a few years no matter what we do. I can understand that GCN is frustrated the arquements to keep the Hubble do not make fiscal or political sense and in science with cheaper ground stations getting closer and closer to the Hubbles capability it does not make sense either.

There will be other better more powerful space telescopes and ones which we can design to actually service and repair and to not rely on a very worn out and possibly dangerous Shuttle.