New Mars Forums

I'm not so sure. I think what needs to be remembered here is that Mars is, for the most part, one big huge flat rocky desert. I imagine that if the tires are big enough, and the rocks small enough, that slowly roving across it in a Hab wouldn't be too uncomfortable (although I admit it won't be quite the same as not roving altogether). Perhaps more importantly though, the fact that mars is basically a huge expansive rocky desert has more implications with the relative concentration of geologically interesting sites. I'm afraid that any geologically interesting pockets might be too quickly explored, and they'll be too far apart.

Imagining it now, with anything more than 7 boosters strapped together the whole thing will start to look like very flat, like a pancake. Once this happens I guess the aerodynamic drag of the whole system starts to go up real fast.

I think both the Nasa DRM and Mars Direct share a common oversight: That there simply won't be enough geological science to do near the hab; (even with a long range rover) not enough to keep the astronauts, and the politicians, happy over the 1.5 year or so stay.

Whats really preferable is a fully mobile hab.

The retrofit parts (tires, suspension, motors) can be delivered seperately on a cargo vehicle, then later fitted to the hab. Perhaps some of the first missions can omit this ability, but I think the added science and stimulation would be worth adding this ability to later missions.

What do you think?

Thats exactly what I hope not to do. I just think there's something better than agnosticism. I'm not sure what it is, but I hope that it exists. Perhaps you could say that I have 'faith' that we can find it. Hence 'Rational Agnosticism'. I intended the title to suggest that this new agnosticism accepts faith as a rational means to an efficient life. Perhaps 'Agnostic Faith' is a better fit, but I would rather keep the value of rational thought in there aswell. Basically, its all about knowing what you don't know, and acknowledging the need for faith. The truth is I don't know much about what I'm talking about (thats the agnostic part). But I trust that I can make something of it (the rational/faith part). Perhaps you can help me a little?

Well this is an interesting topic for me, as I have recently become aware of the concept of agnostics. I wonder whether, if everyone realized the value of agnostic theism, that everyone might be a little more empathetic, which is what is really needed. More empathy.

Empathizing with the pacifists, I might be tempted to pronounce the whole conundrum as inevitable; a necessary evil if you will.

Empathizing with athiests, I can understand perhaps that they attempt to strategically counteract bias with bias, but this does them no good.

Empathizing with theists, or rather sympathizing with them, I understand that some may have experienced things which would be otherwise unexplainable (from their current knowledge) without accepting some degree of spirituality.

Agnosticism unfortunately has its own weaknesses, at least in its traditional form. However, I believe what agnosticism really needs is some better PR. I've devoted a discussion board for the purpose of better defining agnosticism, as I beleive it can often fall into its own trap (one remembers the parable about logs and specks in eyes).

Perhaps the most interesting thing I have discovered about agnostics is that it is not only compatable with religion, but I personally believe that most religions ask their followers to be actively agnostic as believers. I believe man has done a good job of slowly clouding it over, but you can still find it in there if you look deep enough.

I propose that a new agnostic doctrine be created, and defined. I'd like to call it Rational Agnosticism.

Fundamentally, it differs from agnosticism by allowing the appropriation of faith based on the need for assumption.

For example, traditional agnosticism (from what I know about it) says that one can never be 100% certain, and therefore one should abstain from making decisions based on uncertainty. Although this is true, one must accept the instinct, and indeed the need, to make assumptions (at least in order to maintain sanity). There you have it:

Rational Agnosticism.

You can help to define it!

http://cleanslate.editboard.com/viewtopic.forum?t=5

Thats okay, outdoing the AresV is not whats needed. I fear these SRB's aren't going to help NASA's PR machine when they start launching lunar missions, with all the talk of massive amounts of toxic propellents being released into the air with every 'noble' launch.

It sounds to me like a 3-main tank, Kerosene/Hydrogen, 2 or 3 stage launch vehicle is at least do-able, with no really big show stoppers, other than the pointlessness of it all in the face of better alternatives I guess.

The wikipedia article on the Delta IV mentions 'propellant cross feed from strap on boosters to the common core' as one of the potential upgrades to the Delta IV system. I briefly thought of this as an alternative to trying to squeeze enough engines under one booster, but this doesn't seem enough to warrant its expense. What do they say?

They also mention up to 6 strap on booster cores are possible. I guess you could at least consider the possibility of the same configuration but with shuttle main tanks. Although honestly, I do struggle to imagine that such an unwieldly booster could only lift about 200 tonnes. Where are the newmars number crunchers?

Whats the fundamental difference between an Energia or an all-hyrdogen Ares V and a 3-main tank booster?

Is it possible to convert the outer tanks to kerosene without too much redesign?

I understand it is better to have a good thrust-to-weight ratio on the first stage, but could you give me some numbers? I imagine the Energia may be similar to the rocket I propose (did CalTech give it a name?), although I don't recall whether the first stage of the Energia was hydrogen or kerosene fueled? Perhaps the fact that the first stage of this proposed rocket is much larger in proportion to the second stage is somehow detrimental to performance aswell?

Regardless, what I would really like to know is the potential payload to LEO.

I was reading about the science behind 'faith healing'; a subject many skeptics might immediately dissmiss as utter nonsence and sillyness. However, after reading a couple of articles I was convinced that there is a great deal of science behind it, perhaps not the science one might expect, but interesting science nevertheless.

http://www.skepdic.com/faithhealing.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-05/i-files.html

Infact, if one reads the whole article right the way through, you are almost left not only with a sense of sympathy, but also some kind of respect for the people involved. Religion has sticking power, not because people are foolish, but because the science behind it is so good.

Well the secrets out. Let me introduce to you the Clean Slate Society Forum:

http://cleanslate.editboard.com

I intend this forum to be a place where creative users can contribute their knowledge of current society and discuss potential solutions to current flaws; In effect drafting the policies of a theoretical new society from the ground up, or from a 'clean slate'.

I expect to see a great deal of collaboration on the potential possibilities of clean slate designs in many varied fields. Following is a few of my personal favorite musings:

- Clean Slate Country (As the US gained independence from Britain, can we once again create a new society where none existed before?)

- Clean Slate Government (Democracy has its flaws; can we do better?)

- Clean Slate Policies, Constitution, etc.

- Clean Slate Philosophy (an undeniable infallable philosophy which encompasses, while respecting, all others)

- Clean Slate IT Hardware & Software (Scratch-designed computer standards; internet 3.0, clean-slate operating system)

- Clean Slate Education System

- Clean Slate City (A large megapolis designed and tested within a simulated 3D environment before the first foundation stone is layed...)

- Clean Slate (your idea here)

I've been a member of newmars for some time now. During my time here I've been impressed with the well-researched discussion of issues relating to the potential for a scratch-built marsian society. Many of these ideas have impressed me enough to wonder wether we could implement these ideas on earth, perhaps as part of a new country, or simply to improve on current designs.

If these ideas appear intriguing to you, please help the Clean Slate Society Forums by contributing your own thoughts, ideas and knowledge.

Thanks,

- Mike

http://cleanslate.editboard.com

I want to create my own web forum. I have registered my domain name, downloaded and uploaded phpBB, and experimented with different web hosts. At the start it looked easy, but its becoming more difficult than I was led to believe... Can a newbie do this? Perhaps there are pre-setup web forums available; ones I can free-load from or share?

Thats cool that you found that. Those guys do seem to argue a lot, but reading through it has showed me a few potential problems.

First let me say that the guy who actually mentioned something similar to my proposal above was virtually ignored, or at least misunderstood. Most of the posts appeared to argue whether it is possible to produce a suitable parabola shape of mercury within a satellite subjected to axially spin only, which would be pointless as the problem of lack of gravity can be solved by replacing it with centripetal acceleration.

One guy mentions that the resulting shape of mercury produced in a dish subjected to two axes of rotation (like the one I propose) would be 'astigmatic' in the direction of rotation. This would best be imagined by visuallizing a flat dish of mercury, without axial spin: The mercury would assume a curve with a radius equal to the centre of rotation, i.e. somewhere in space between the dish and the counterweight. However, I suggest that if the tether is made very long (kilometers, maybe hundreds), the radius of curvature would be so large that the mercury would be very nearly flat. Flat enough to produce a good image?

A very long tether would simultaneously slow down your rate of rotation, allowing longer exposures. Also, the centripetal acceleration would only need to be very small; just enough to hold the mercury against the dish.

P.S.: When I read how it would be impossible to produce a parabolic shape when only axial spin is considered, as the mercury would quickly assume a cylindrical shape, I quickly thought of this solution: How about continuosly pumping the mercury over a slowly spinning parabolic shape, so that the mercury enters in the centre, naturally flowing outwards over the parabola and towards its periphery. The mercury would be collected from the sides of the cylindrical container, and pumped behind the parabola so that it enters in the centre again. Pointless but possible? A clean flow would be required, but again because the rate of rotation need only be very small the mercury might only need to flow very slowly.