You are not logged in.
I don't mean that kind of organization. I mean physical organization... the ability to put your knolwedge to use!
Technology = Knolwedge + Organization
At present we are lacking the organization.
You say, the problem is not in technology, it is in the unproductive use of technology, and while I get the gist of what you are saying, a more accurate statement would be that our problem is not in the knolwedge, it is in the organization.
Sagan's Blunder
Carl Sagan once said that, if we find microbes on Mars, we should not terraform Mars, because that would infringe on the rights of the microbes. I think this argument is absurd. Once we have categorized, studied, and know how to reproduce every general type of microbe on the surface then we have nothing more to learn and can begin ecopoesis. Yes it will take some time to do this, mabye as much as a century in the case that they live in remote underground regions. Yet if they live in those regions, we may be able to begin ecopoesis immediately, because any effects may be so long in waiting that we'll have ample time to study the microbes before their habitat is gone.
You save wildlife for two reasons. Beauty and usefulness. Microbes are not beautiful. Nobody will ever see them except for a few specialists. Usefulness could abound, but once it is used up, we can go ahead with making Mars more hospitable to humans.
Well, some of that post was written like that as a joke (I think the poster was refering to how technology had leaped ahead, thus I thought I would spoof it with the opposite conclusion).
However, a lot of what I said is actually correct. We don't have nuclear rockets anymore, although we did in the 1960s. We don't have the capability to send men beyond Earth orbit anymore, although we did in the 1960s. Our main launch vehicle for men was cheaper in the 1960s, with the Saturn V, then the one we are using now, the Space Shuttle. Oh, that reminds me of another don't: We don't have a single heavy lift vehicle in operation anymore, anywhere in the world, although we did in the 1960s in two seperate countries.
In short, while technology has advanced in some areas, in the really important ones, it has declined drastically. (Note the distinction between technology and knolwedge)
Perhaps in the future the Mars Society might be able to launch a MSR-ISPP mission. This mission would obviously be the best mission any organization could possibly launch except for the human mission. The balloon mission might be interesting, "showing the public that Mars is a world", but I think bringing back a piece of Mars would do this a lot better, and the best thing is, the political ramifications for our plodding space agencies would be enourmous. NASA's current scheduled MSR-ISPP is set for a 2011 launch date, with likely further delays as the bureacrats realize that their mickey-mouse date is finally drawing near enough that they might actually have to do something. Clearly, the current situation is ridiculous. If we could launch our own MSR-ISPP, we would show the world that the future of space exploration is not completely in the hands of government, it is also in the hands of private organizations. The PR boost for all space organizations and companies would be enourmous. What is more, government would have to reorganize its Mars exploration campaign around the fact that MSR is already done, and with the technology they claim is "untested". Clearly MSR-ISPP would set them all one step, and very possibly many steps closer to a human mission.
I agree, the technology of today is very much worse than the technology of yesterday with regards to space exploration. No nuclear rockets, no huge expendable rockets, no humans beyond Earth orbit. Its terrible. We have really gone backward.
Ecopoesis can be accomplished in a matter of decades. It is by far the most important part of terraforming. I am completely in favor of this, but full transformation of the atmosphere to oxygen is indeed such a long term endevour that I recommend either
A. Bring the timescale down to within a human lifetime
B. Adapt people
Now, A might at first sound completely absurd. How is that possible, one asks? Well, two reasons. One, the human lifetime is of course increasing, and if we discover a method of drastically slowing down aging it could well expand to several centuries, or perhaps more. The second reason is that our technological capability, in this case in regard to molecular engineering, is increasing. Humanity might design some sort of molecular device, be it a cell or another stucture, that would speed up the terraforming process considerably. One could also envision, in a society with massive amounts of energy and resources, simply brute forcing things with huge factories and fusion reactors. Of course, nanotech is more likely.
Now, B is really a continuum of ideas. At one end of the continuum, you have a mechanical device which is easy enough to use that the person need never desire to take it off, that is, a device as comfortable as clothing. Then, moving up the continuum, you have various levels of intrusion into the biological workings of the person, finally culminating in the design of an entirely new type of being. Such a being would probably not be biological, at least as we speak of it. It would be cybernetic in nature, a fusion of man and machine, possibly at the subcellular level. Such technology, while today the stuff of sheer fantasy, is not banned by any physical law, nor can it be, since we are simply a variant of it as now.
What is often missed by individuals who would advocate a government in which disputes are settled is that murder, rape, theft, etc. are all actually manifestations of the same force in human society that government is: the ability of individuals to have power over other individuals. Observe the relationship. At the most basic level, an individual threatens people who do not obey his word. Then, one moves up to the level of a gang, then a medeival lordship, a small government, and finally a great government, or empire. What this means is that our long established bias, the idea of crime and government being two sides of a war, is actually completely flawed: they are really two sides of the same coin.
We're asking all the wrong questions about property. We ask "Who owns what?" but that isn't the right question. By posing a question, we're creating a problem that dosen't exist. The idea of property is totally arbitrary and unnecessary. It can be thrown out the window.
The thing which seperates anarchy from government is not how the questions are answered, but which questions are asked in the first place.
Is having each message reviewed by a moderator really necessary? The amount of time it takes makes communication rather slow. It would really be better if it was a free board... if people start posting ads or something, just delete them.
I think that it is probably a bad idea to try to press total anarchy on Mars. The reason is that anarchy must be a slow transition. You are not going to take people adapted to a modern welfare state and then suddenly pop them into an anarchistic state and not expect people to get scared and start a government. No, a better idea would be to try to create an anti-capitalist, libertarian Mars. By adjusting Martian colonists to libertaria, you allow the older generations a smaller transition to adapt to, and the younger generations more leg room in which to push toward a real anarchy. We aren't stopping the colonization at Mars, remember. Once even ecopoesis (the transition to a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere) is complete, Mars will no longer be the edge of the frontier. That status will have engulfed the outer asteroid belt and the Jovian system, and possibly more. And because Mars is a frontier based civilization anyway, Mars is likely to pursue its own colonization interests once it is capable of doing so. What that means is this: a libertarian Mars will have the chance of creating real anarchistic societies in the outer solar system.
Rome was not built in a day: niether will a state of anarchy.
What a fool I have been! I once advocated anarchy (although I never actually read the literature about it until now). I had no idea what I was advocating! Now I understand what anarchy is. Now I can really favor it!
Wouldn't you agree that slavery and oppression is bad for social development?
Yes. They are bad for social development because slavery and oppression are the antithesis of free thought, and free thought is the key to both social development and modern science. So I agree.
There must be a mutually expanding relationship between the frontier and free thought. Free thought gives rise to new ideas, which necessarily helps us explore the frontier, in various ways (new technology, initiatives, etc). Yet, the frontier also helps free us from old ideas. For example, as Turner pointed out in his chronicle of the American frontier life, settlers belonging to Puritanism typically lightened the severity of their devotion to faith, and sometimes forgot it altogether when placed in the rugged frontier enviornment of the middle United States. Turner states something like "the frontier remakes man in its own image".
Zubrin and Kim Stanely Robinson are, perhaps, much more alike in their political viewpoints than they think!
What I'm saying is, if you go to Mars with a CO2 scrubber, you need to go to Mars with the ablity to make another CO2 scrubber.
It is too bloody expensive.
Updated 2021/09/22 by Moderator
Happy Holidays to you as well, Josh.
It is true that modern science was (and is) based on ideas, not physical resources, but I base my comment on the importance of the frontiers on Europe's reliance on foreign trade to maintain wealth during those days. Without that wealth, where would Europe have been? Poor living conditions are not beneficial to either social development, or scientific advacement. Even if it is the case, also, that the Renaissance would have begun without the frontier, it might have not carried itself into the modern age without that extra wealth to keep up its momentum.
The one difference is that Martian pioneers will have to take everything with them.
Well, early Martian pioneers will have to take everything which requires expensive facilities to produce on Mars, but they won't have to take everything. They won't have to take carbon or oxygen, and with the first base, they won't have to take water either. The list of things they won't have to take will become larger and larger.
I believe any expansion to Mars would be based on a strong political theory.
That is likely to be the case.
Updated 2021/09/21 by Moderator
What sort of parallels can we draw between future frontiers in the inner solar system and past frontiers on Earth?
One thing that seperates many past frontiers from this one is the matter of adaptation. In this respect, the space frontier is far more like the great frontier Earth of tens of thousands of years ago than anything else. By the time of the classic American and Spanish frontiers, humans had already mastered all the tools they would need to live in the places they endevoured to inhabit. Yet this was clearly not the case with frontier Earth. Frontier Earth clearly exhibited technological progress on the part of the colonists, probably some social advancement as well, and certianly, in the long run, better living conditions than were experienced in East Africa. Furthermore, the great civilizations of Earth would never have existed without this great step into the unknown. The case of Frontier Earth, perhaps the best model for our current situation that there is, lends a tremendous hand to Zubrin's arguments for expansion into space.
But there are other things to consider. Frontier Earth was expansion to many places ; to all of Earth. Expansion to Mars will be to a very specific place. In this way, the frontier will be much more like the classic example of the American frontier, and, in a more depressing way, expansion to South America by Spain. Mars west, indeed! But before we look at the actual frontier societies themselves, it is necessary to look at the effects of the frontier upon the parent nation. And what do we see? Wealth! Tons of it! And the result of that wealth? Growth! Technological expansion, social development, etc. There were some bad cases, that is true. Spain went downhill from a combination of factors, not the least of which was competition from other frontier nations, but even it had great wealth coming back from the frontier in its day. Later on, England and France inherited the title of frontier developers. They too shared in the great wealth that the frontier brought. Without the frontier, would modern science even exist? There is a good chance, in fact, that it would not.
It seems evident that wherever there is expansion, there is wealth, and many times, some real development! What does the frontier provide? For the places doing the exploring, it provides wealth and a chance for development into something new. For the places being colonized, aside from actually bringing them into existance as human frontiers, it allows for a new ideology to take hold. Good or bad, the frontier does offer a chance that whatever society takes root will be greater than the one which has gone before.
Count me in as well
I trying to post this message 'A Private MSR-ISPP' and it keeps deleting the body of the message and just posting the title. There are now three messages of the same title with nothing on them (that presumably also includes the latest attempt). The error message was
Ikonboard has exited with the following error:
File:/your/path/to/cgi-bin/ikonboard/Database/forum_posts/f7/forum_posts-3.cnt.db Reason:No such file or directory
This error was reported at: Sources/iDatabase/Driver/DBM.pm line 378.
Please note that your 'real' paths have been removed to protect your information.
...Which was posted on the page which came up after I clicked post.
Never mind, my estimate was wrong ; it should be more like 400 kJ, I used the wrong gravity.
...that's all mars will ever be, an outpost manned by a few scientist's.
I do not understand why we cannot calculate an estimate of the amount of radiation falling on the Martian surface. It passes through a generally known region of matter at a generally known density. Perhaps the probe you mentioned only carries the radiation instrument to see if our estimates are correct. Perhaps they are not correct-- what is your response if they are?
I calculate that to excavate a typical hab-size structure, 10 x 10 x 5 m, will require about 1 MJ. I get this by assuming an arbitrary efficiency of about 50%, which I pulled out of a hat ; if you find a more valid rating, either larger or smaller, adjust accordingly. So it seems to me that to excavate will not be too much work assuming we have on hand a 100 kWh nuclear reactor.
Why is taking a few years to produce and design such a big deal? Also, why do you consider it a new technology? Tethers have been tested before, although perhaps not with such large masses, but I see no fundamental problem with doing so. Do you?
Nitrogen may be in the regolith, I don't know. I certianly hope it is, indeed! However, we do know it is in the atmosphere. If nowhere else, we can get it from there.
Here are some potential reasons that I can come up with why people would want to live on Mars:
1. Mars is the second largest resource base in the solar system. This is a very important point that is usually missed, because you can have an effectively infinite number of small, disorganized societies and still not accomplish anything important. This is not to say that the asteroid belt has to be that way, but it is certianly possible.
2. Mars has free land. If you go there, you can get very cheap resources that will develop later into a stupendous investment.
3. Mars has the potential to create a new civilization. I think that certian freedoms are possible to establish on Mars without the possibility of anarchy.
4. Mars is the asteroid belt's closest economic parter and has a role to play in its development, and vise versa as well.
5. Mars, unlike antarctica, has all the resources necessary to support a vibrant civilization.
6. Mars is terraformable. A second Earth is nothing to sneeze at.
Clark the stuff about the rads is in the Case for Mars. Perhaps I am somehow misquoting Zubrin's statistic, but he said that a person in space would recieve 38 rem and a person on the surface would recieve 10 rem, so if you get the ratio and multiply by the ratio between the concentration of solar radiation in Mars orbit and concentration in Earth orbit, you have the comparison.
Underground bases are more expensive than surface bases. Period. If you don't believe me, try getting the funds to build an underground house.
Nobody on this mission will spend more than a few days in zero-g. I agree with you that there is a strong possibility that one day the human race(s) will live mostly on asteroids, but certianly not in GEO, and probably not very soon, either.
Nobody ever said that we were going to put pure, unfiltered Martian atmosphere in the domes.
I am sceptical of fusion. Everyone says it is a good idea, and I agree that we need to find out if it can be made cheap enough to be justifyable. Yet, how to do that? If no method can be found, then what is the purpose of He3?
We will see where the nitrogen is on Mars. There is a limited supply in the atmosphere ; there may yet be much in the regolith, buried under the immediate surface in compounds.
The moon has almost no hydrogen, carbon, or nitrogen. Clark, please face reality. The moon is not a site for a very vibrant civilization. A small civilization may exist there, but it will be nothing like Mars. I do not understand why you do not find it easy to accept this ; most of your arguments are easily flipped over and the ones that remain are just setbacks, not major problems.
The moon has some water, but like I said, not enough to support any kind of vibrant civilization-- how are you going to support a civilization without water? That's impossible.
Your statement about GEO facilities is just as ludicrous as saying that it is only a matter of time before we migrate off the land and become ocean-dwellers.
There is something wrong either with these message boards or my computer. It appears that they do not, from my perspective, accept edited messages. Is anyone else having this problem?
I thought the superoxides on Mars were caused by UV radiation's interaction with more natural soil components. Then, if we dig slightly under the soil, that soil should lack superoxides, correct?
Advanced plants can be grown in one of two ways. They can be grown, if we have the technology, using hydroponics. Or, if we do not have the technology, they can be grown by releasing algae or lichen on the Martian soil under a pressurized dome and letting them do their work.
I am not sure that what you say about the Martian radiation hazard is true. This is because on Mars solar flares are 8.9 times less powerful than on the Moon-- assuming the statistic that the Martian atmosphere shields out 74% of solar flares, on average, is correct (I get this from The Case for Mars). This can probably be brought down at least a little bit further by using cheap UV coatings on the dome material, too.
Additionally I do not think it is necessary to have artificial light on the Mars at all, because dust storms do not block out enough light to cause serious problems for plants anyway (Also from The Case for Mars). Solar panels are still a fine option, though not as fine as on the Moon.
I believe with regard to the plants issue, what he meant was that it was easy to obtain carbon dioxide on Mars, which plants do indeed thrive on given some reasonable mixing with other components, while it is very expensive on the Moon due its rarity. We may be able to bring some with us but ultimately the carbon in that biomass has to come from somewhere.
Are you sure that plants cannot endure temperatures below negative thirty? For that matter, celcius or farenheight?
How can you judge the value of Martian life when you haven't even seen it? I don't know how much it will be worth, economically... mabye it isn't DNA based! How would -that- work out? Who knows? We don't know. If we knew, it would be far less exciting, in my opinion. We'll have to see what happens.
Cool Stuff to Promote REAL Humans in Space
What we should do is just lower federal taxes on companies doing human space endevours to near-zero levels for a couple of years, followed by an incremental increase if the industry is going cool. At the same time, you've got to get the Space Shuttle off the map, remove it completely from existance (it surely can't be sold, it is unprofitable) ; this will create a massive demand for human space endevours from the government and corporations who no longer have access to this meddling behemoth to do their dirty work (if the government wants a real launch vehicle they can set a set price for developing one and watch the fun, if it is high enough-- this would be different from the current SLI in that any corp could compete if they satisfied one requirement-- your price per kg is lower than X). The ISS needs to be reformed like crap ; it should be adapted to work with the cheapest rockets capable of carrying humans (assuming they are reasonably safe). Furthermore these rockets should be carried by private industry only ; no more government rockets, those should all be sold or, if that is not viable, trashed (that includes Space Shuttle). For any private organization which can pay the transport costs, use of the ISS should be free (or if there are too many and it is overwhelming the science, select according to the profitibility of the endevour to be performed). The government (NASA) should also issue a statement which says, with the money freed up from all this "For every net dollar any corporation makes by putting humans in space, we add X%".
I just came up with this crazy stuff of the top of my head, but if implemented, it will work. There are a whole range of things you can do and I have not touched on the majority of them.
The reason we are going to Mars is to create a new civilization. People believe in this. It is possible to make a profit on Mars-- in fact, I am sure this is the most powerful revenue source there-- by selling real estate to those people who wish to go and help bring into life a new civilization. So that is your profit source. However it probably won't be very effective until your one-way ticket price gets down to about $10,000,000 at the very least. That means that even assuming a striped down $4 billion mission could be pulled off using every availible advantage (and that dosen't even include costs of setting up the actual long-term base!) you would still have to reduce hardware costs by a factor of ten (remember there are four people in the typical Mars Direct style mission) to even have a chance at making a profit. Thus there is a clear need to have much cheaper launch vehicles. To even begin to make a profit, we are going to need hardware (this includes launch vehicles, habitat, etc) ten times cheaper than the cheapest Russian human-compatible vehicle out there.
Now I am actually somewhat confused, when I think about it, about this Mars v. Moon debate. Who do we mean when we say 'we' should go to the Moon first? Mars first? 'We', if you mean the Mars Society, has absolutely no choice in the matter at present. I say, if anybody wants to go the Moon, they can go to the Moon, and vise versa. Who cares who goes first? However, if -I- were a billionaire at present (must be careful to avoid the... 'what "we" should do' trap) then I would first of all create a line cheap launch vehicles [perhaps buying majority shares in Kistler, or something, if they would accept]. This benefits all of space exploration and makes it far easier for any long-term endevour to go foward. Then, if I had a lot of money, I would try to lower hardware costs to Mars enough to make a base profitable. Skip the Moon-- frankly, there's little of interest out there. I for one am not very interested in some hotel. It is far more profitable to colonize Mars in the long run (and far more interesting). Who cares about the short-run, really? If I were a billionaire, I would only consider the Moon if that were the only option, if Mars was quite beyond my grasp in terms of cash. I say, it is better to have the Moon than to have nothing.
Indeed... I second this. Although I think that this society's goals are well, its individual interest is totally second to the overall goal of Mars exploration. The Mars Society should definitely mention Elon Musk when it talks about the Translife. I also want the Mars Society to participate, but you can't lie like they have been on the front page.
How fast you can make a silicon chip per amount of chip is a dictated by quantum mechanics, at a certian point your electons start tunneling through the walls of the chip, which is not very good, you know. I don't know if anyone really knows even a rough sketch of what we will be able to do by arranging chips in different architectures however or designing new interfaces between them.... that is something I have not looked at much, despite the awesome potential (neurons are not very fast-- yet by working together, a human brain is faster than the fastest supercomputer yet made).
Optical, chemical, and even quantum computing are also sweeping possibilities should they turn out to be practical.
Due to accidental deletion of the old account, my new account is alex1s1emc23@icqmail.com.