New Mars Forums

It is what we do on the Moon that will help us when we go for a large Human prescence on Mars. If we can develop these robots we will learn what works and what does not, Eventually we will have robots able to operate themselves no longer telerobotic but operationally autonomous. This is when they will be of great benefit to the colonisation of Mars.

It is 3 main reasons for oil prices to have risen like they have

1) India and China have with there increased consumption pulled all spare capacity towards themselves. All oil producers are at close to maximum capacity and unless demand reduces (it wont) or new sources appear. I suspect high oil prices are here for a long time.
2) Political instability in the Gulf states has worried many people as terrorism finds the oil industry a soft target. This though is tempered by the increased supply coming from Iraq, this is the only country who's capacity is increasing. This actually is a good thing for the financial state of the Iraq people
3) Serious political instability in Venezuela. This is what is currently pushing prices up. It is the high possibility of civil war in this country that is worrying the buyers of Oil. Venezuela is a Major Major oil supplier and it may well have the greatest reserves of any country short of Saudi Arabia.

As im not from the USA I have tried to stay away from this thread but this needed to be posted.

The problem I have always had with Mars Direct is it creates very good exploration missions of Mars. They are done efficiently with a good load of time to do a very good amount of science on Mars.

This unfortunatly will likely lead to what happened to the apollo program. Prove it is a great success, do some of the science and since we can not get a proper Base as the weight limits are too tight it leads to project cancelled.

The only way that the Colonisation of Mars will be able to happen is if there is infrastructure. We probably cant get it from Earth the launch costs are too high so we have to go elsewhere. It will be a slow process but with luck and sense we will manage it. And im pretty sure that the key to it will be the ability to construct items on the Moon without the need of people being present just in contact from earth-Telerobotics. Its this technology that will allow us to make what we need to allow us to go further.

The IRA as we call them do not really exist, The IRA has splintered and splintered over the years. The Provisional IRA was the organisation that was the main Catholic Ulster terrorist organisation and was the one that through its political wing called Sinn Fein signed the good friday accords so resulting in the relative peace that is the current status.

It is Ironic that the Provos did not all agree with the Good friday agreement and the result was another fracturing with the Real IRA and clones forming. The Provos did have a reasonable general support from the Catholic side of Ulster but these splinter groups do not, as such they are fading.

Why did Sinn fein sign the good friday agreement with there enemies the Protestants, Many reasons, But here are some main ones
The Catholic and protestant population of Ulster where totally had it with terrorism they wanted peace and jobs.

The Provisional IRA where losing there ranks had been deeply penetrated by British security forces and Whole cells killed off or arrested by Special operations. There main source of income was the USA but there source of weapons and training was Libya needless to say after Lockerbie and the security clampdown this had become untenable.

The Protestant Ulster Irish had formed there own terror organisations and where repaying in kind. And there was a general war over the control of the Drugs trade.

I hope this helps why things are they now, If you want a reason why these groups formed in the first place im sorry there is no way that we could fit this in one forum. There are so many reasons and actions and so many countries and organisations involved over the last 2 thousand years that it cant realistically be done.

It must be noted that the FLQ did not have access to Nuclear material and weapons. Al Qaeda may well have.

This is a scenario that we in Britain are all too scared off.

During the cold war both the USA and USSR created nuclear bombs that are fitted into suitcases and are light and portable. These where a potential first strike weapon. But with the fall of the USSR of the 100 or so devices made only about half can be accounted for. These devices are small and easily portable and very hard to spot.

Then there is the dirty bomb, This is even simpler to get made its only nuclear material placed in a normal terrorist bomb so all damage gets irradiated and requires decontamination. If you think al Qaeda are not planning this im sorry to say that a terrorist cell has been caught in Britain this week that was planning to do just that. And not just to the UK but also they had the plans and information on various places in the USA.

So why give these organised evil people a chance to carry out there plans. We dont have police in the Middle east if you get a shot at hurting them before they can carry out another attrocity then take it. If they enter your country or another which you have an extradition treaty with arrest them but in the middle east we dont have that luxury. Its a case of if the snake pops its head out dont wait till you get bitten.

Im Scottish and im also British I have lived with terrorism all my life. There is nothing worse than having a routine to search under your car each time you get in looking for bombs but I used to have to do it due to my job. I have family who have been sent bullets in the post by the IRA. The only way to deal with terrorism is to meet it head on but allow a carrot to be there too so as to allow a less violent solution. And why tell you im Scottish, after chernobyl Scotland recieved a lot of fallout even now after 2 decades there are large areas where sheep and cattle that graze there are unfit due to the radiation contamination to eat. This is the stakes we face.

Im not the only one who has serious doubts as to the feasibility and reason of any repair to the Hubble.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/hubble-0 … Spacedaily article

If as the report seems to be saying that more could be done with a project expected to overun to the tune of 2 Billion $us then why keep with a project that needs so much. Certainly it makes sense to have a space telescope, just not one out of date. Send a new one and for 2 Billion that is very easily feasible and with a lot more life expectancy. So if there is a mistake it is keeping the Hubble. It has done its job and more time for something better.

Cobra but the United states is a signatory to the Outer space treaty and it is quite emphatic that no one owns space it is a resource for all mankind and can not be claimed by any country. The US is actually one of the sponsors of the treaty and it suited the US goverment then. I know that private organisations and companies have claimed various celestial bodies and sold portions of them to various people as novelty gifts but these can not be taken seriously. In Scotland a solicitor to prove how ridiculous that portion of the outer space treaty is claimed the Sun and states we all owe him a few billion years of energy fees.

The only way that space can be exploited for all mankind is to revize the outer space treaty. There are some very good points in it, ie licensing of space missions and stating space orbits and all material launched by a nation belong to that nation. But the treaty on ownership has to be revized or someone will simply withdraw from it and it will be a dead treaty as others quickly follow suit.

Interesting comment Cobra we have peace until the next big threat comes our way.(of couse the world has never been at peace always a war going on)

The general consensus in europe was that if it had not been for 9/11 the USA had already decided that the next big threat was to be China. It was noted that the USA had already turned its attention away from the atlantic and towards the Asian states. It might have been this attitude that allowed everyone to be blindsided by the events of 9/11 no one was expecting it to happen. It is a little ironic that the needs to fight terrorism has meant cooperation with China as they have borders and areas at risk of trouble.

Of course China is becoming a greater and greater world power it is the increased use of oil of it and India that has pushed oil prices up so much. And this demand for oil to power its commercial advancement that is going to keep increasing its need for oil. So prices for oil will keep going up as oil supply cannot keep up with demand. Bad news this means more cash for the centers of terrorism and it means that any insecurity there has a global impact.

What I should have asked is
For space to be opened up it is essential for a heavy launcher to be able to put the infrastructure into space. It then becomes the question what would be best develop a new class of heavy launcher using modern materials which would be "cheaper" to use over and over again or redevelop the shuttle infrastructure which would be cheaper to do but flies more expensive flights due to its design.

Personally with the current spaceflight climate I would go for a shuttle C type operation. Not that im enamoured of the Shuttles high overhead costs. But it would start going in the right direction and this would mean it would be harder to cancel a program if it has a lot of infrastructure up in space. Also im sure that a shuttle C would lead to pressure to develop a new "cheap" Heavy launcher. I am also sure that if we wait to develop a new launcher it will become very at risk of cancellation or severe distortion similar to what happened to the shuttle. I am also sure that the "new" heavy launcher would be constantly in time and cost overuns if it does not have something urgent to replace.

This may be a cynical belief but with the way things have gone before I believe it to be very apt.

This a question that has been hinted at in other threads but not for a long time taken square on.

What would be the cheapest Heavy launcher( ie minimum of 100 tons to LEO) and how would you build it and how much would it cost?

One way is to combine a whole load of other engines like a bundle of pencils and use that to put a cargo up, But is that the best way.

Or is it the Sea dragon way, make your rocket in a shipyard and "crack" your fuel from the sea and up you go.

Or is a super nuclear rocket the way to go?

What GCNRevenger is discussing is a two stage spaceplane, which has been planned by a couple of companies/organisations here is there cargo and passenger capacity planned.

MBB Sanger
this was a Junkers design first proposed in the 1960's and was continually developed into the 90's.
Sanger was fueled by two stages both using hydrogen fuel and the first stage to save cost could also be used as a high priority cargo carrier. Sanger would seperate at Mach 7 and was due to carry 36 passengers cargo about 5 tonnes and cost about $400,000 a flight. Development cost was to be about $17 billion.

Bristol spaceplanes Spacebus
This a more modern design and is again 2 stages.
The fuel used for the lower stage is kerosene and only at the end of the run does it use rockets to accelerate. The second stage was to carry 50 passengers and again 5 tonnes cargo and at $250,000 a flight.
It also could use the lower stage to deliver high priority cargo.
Development cost again is about the $17 billion.

These though are designs for delivering high numbers to earth orbit, and it is unlikely short of tourism that these numbers are needed unless heavy utilisation of space is initialised. I do not think the safety options inbuilt meet GCNRevengers escape pod as they are more like airliners than the spaceshuttle. I like the idea of being able to recue the whole passenger compartment but I have to ask.
How much to make it.
How many passenger spaces will it take
If we insist upon it will it stop space utilisation for years

Oh one thing to note space planes are only effective if they are part of a full spectrum of space launch capacity. Ie this means Heavy launcher and space station to go to.

This thread is becoming a bash another country and is not exactly condusive to good relations amongst the Mars Society and New Mars in particular.

A lot of peoples preconceptions and Values are coming out here and WE have to be careful it does not become a slanging match. Especially as what most of these topics are is becoming history. People must remember in the second world war peoples attitudes and ways of life are a lot more different than they are now. Using what happened then to prove a point in the present is a bit ludicrous.

Because if we really start having to use history to prove your points you my well have to go further back than the second world war. Iraq or Persia being created by the allies and in particular Britain after the first world war, and it was unstable then actually almost joining the Axis side in the Second world war. With hindsight we can see now warnings of what was to come that where not picked up, but the people then did not and we can not blame them. Blitzkrieg or lightning war was the invention of a British officer and he published the book which was ignored in Britain and avidly read in Germany. An attack on pearl harbour was a scenario created by an American but when the Japanese did attack, the plan they had and the scenario where so similar it makes you wonder if it had been copied verbatum. But also sometimes integrity does come through and this is to be applauded. Germany did attempt to have a peace treaty with Britain in 1940 in this Germany sent there second in command over to try to start negociations (he got thrown into a cell, where he remained till he was moved to spandau prison).

What must be remembered in history people make mistakes there desires may blind them to the obvious (Neville Chamberlain?). It is important that we learn from these mistakes so that we do not repeat them. I am not sure if all Frances objections to the War in Iraq was it was illegal etc I think national interest had some sway there, maybe. But since, France is becoming heavily involved in the Darfur region of Sudan which is becoming the worlds current biggest Humanitarian disaster. My own country Britain cant (we are far too heavily involved elsewhere Iraq, Sierra leone etc).
France has no national interest in that region it is simply responding to a real human crisis and for this they should be applauded.