New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#201 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-13 06:42:17
Cyclers are big ships that go around in interplanetary orbits w/o using much fuel... Because most of their mass is dedicated to storage, rather than engines. their ability to change orbits etc is fairly limited, but their cargo-capacity makes good. Mainly a lot of empty space and docking compartments, when they zip past earth, or Mars, Luna... you rendezvous w them, offload your cargo, and return. The cyclers don't stop, so you've got to be punctual.
that way you can use fairly lightweight shuttles, tugs etc... and still get a lot of stuff out. At least that's the idea... IIRC Aldrin is a big fan of the idea.Something like a big, big sealiner that does *not* goes into port, because it doesnt have the required "delta-v" to stop and start efficiently, but passes the ports, small boats chase it, and do their stuff...
Ah, thanks Rxke! Now I see I was obviously using the term inappropriately all along. I was thinking more in terms interplanetary longships pioneering the solar system in terms of cargo capacity and versatility. Ships that would indeed 'stop' by performing orbital injection.
#202 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-13 06:21:36
Gennaro,
I think you have a different understand to wealth that we have. The principle we work off - is that wealth and income are based on the resources, opportunities and control in a given marketplace and the evolution of that marketplace.
In simple terms for you, gennaro - Space is a vast store of resources, opportunities and control of that marketplace - thus who can control through building the infrastructure, coonies and administration framework in turn can then determine the cost recovery of the investment and profit margin.
Because the world nations can not enter the marketplace as controllers as they are on earth , the dynamics of this economic marketplace have changed. The governments think that they are the only one's capable of getting to the planets, So the other legal issues, moral, and cutlural issues that will not occur because they will be extensions of their nations.
But, " murphy's law " or "chaos principle" comes into it and can put a spanner into the designers of the outer space treaty. This means that a a group of individuals do what a nation can't take control over a section or planetary body, and you then going to that body you will need to follow the rules (constitution) of that body or you can be casted out.
---
Gennaro, just think a bit more below coming to the conclusions things can't happen because they can - I will give you this clue - think of a method from earth a private corporation could mass a continuous income stream of 120-150 US$B per annum then you will know how it can fund space infrastructure !!!. ( because I have, and working on the implementation !!!! )
Well comstar, you had better have something very special up your sleeve (won't say I'm not curious!!!) because when it comes to products supplied from space that could alternatively be supplied from earth, like more or less everything anyone has yet thought about apart from micro gravity manufacturing in LEO, the problem of profitability for free enterprise should be obvious.
Thing is with all these investments, infrastructure and spaceships, the profit margin shrinks by a corresponding amount in relation to earth produced alternatives. If you slice it up in shares, which will be necessary considering the capital size, the responsibility of the management is to get profit for the shareholders, otherwise they'll sell off and invest in something more lucrative and the value of your company will sink like stone.
Easily put, space isn't competitive compared to terran investment opportunities.
However, a state organization can disregard this fact and sell the merchandise on the market for what it's worth provided there is still a marginal net profit. That's why governments can engage in interplanetary commerce and lead the way while free market forces are essentially off.
Then I simply don't see why so many people are infatuated with this idea that space entreprenuers will somehow cast off the yoke of terran legislation and control in order to found some renegade state in the skies. Is it that strange 1776 American mythos up and running again? If so the rest of the world are kind of a miss here and doesn't understand the obviously profound role it plays in the American mind.
Unless of course, you are planning on a virtual exodus of the chosen in order to create an all cislunar economy...
#203 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-13 05:49:39
RobS, allright. I'm not sure but it seems our definitions for "cycler" differs somewhat. By that word I simply mean an interplanetary 'commuter' of any kind, using any sort of trajectory from any orbit to another, being able to refuel, return and start out again, more or less indefinitely.
For example, to place itself in orbit if coming in from a 'fast' angle, an advanced, versatile high ISP 'cycler' could supposedly turn around and use its rocket engines as brakes or even deploy a magsail if that would be possible.
Hum, so from your viewpoint, what's a cycler and how would you define a "semi-cycler"?
It could also be my understanding of astronautics is at fault, but I simply don't understand why a spaceship that starts off from an orbit (LEO, MLO) would have to round Neptune in order to return.
Yes, a shuttle from the surface of the Earth would only go as far as low Earth orbit. To get from there to either a cycler in an interplanetary orbit or a semicycler in a high earth orbit/lagrange point, one would either need to refuel the shuttle or transfer the passengers to a ferry.
So in that case we'd have to launch several more 'shuttles' just in order to refuel the original 'shuttle' or 'ferry' so it could continue to high earth orbit or a Lagrange Point?
Also, how do we refuel the cycler when it's out of reach from the 'shuttles' going to LEO? By launching more shuttles that will tank up and load out even more shuttles/ferries to get fuel to the cycler?
Seems like an awful lot of launches and cargo exchanges just to get one single interplanetary mission on the way.
Finally, solar sails would be a cheap and commendable way to haul cargo, but settling for that aren't we again restricted to very tight launch windows with long lulls in between if we are planning to go to Mars?
The restricted launch windows could serve as an obvious advantage for the moon as a destination considering we can reach it anytime of the year for a transit of only 3 days.
#204 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential » 2004-09-13 04:47:13
This argument would then also be true for why multinationals are better then small/mid sized companies and your mom and pop's / one man business.
Which in reality doesn't hold true as small / mid size companies tend to be as good or even better as multinationals.
There's an important difference. Multinationals seek to maximise profits by allocating production to where the price of labour is the lowest, thereby reducing real wages worldwide through the "iron law" of LaSalle.
Government institutions and services on the other hand function basically as socialist re-distributors of wealth. Companies pay for services, for instance energy or communications, and the fee is transfered into consumer purchasing power.
I believe that the burdens of "rational centralization" are bigger then its benefits
You're being too simplistic since not all branches of economical activity are equal. To illustrate the point of decentralising governmental expenditure for example, think of a railroad that spans many localities. Now say we decentralised it with every small county operating its own section of rail instead of devising a single time-table for the entire stretch as well as forcing each locality to pay for rolling stock and maintenance to the best of their ability. Some localities would be so rich they'll squander surplus resources on nonsense while others wouldn't even be capable of keeping the tracks in order. Essentially, this is introducing inefficiency and waste into the system.
As for privatization there are several branches of economical/administrative activity of a similar nature such as energy, hospitals, communications, roads, education, defense and spaceprograms. These are all activities characterized by high capital investment and small profit margins, or even negative profit margins, but which are still essential for the community and private business to function. Indeed, the more lavish services they can provide (provided of course the means are wisely spent) the more private enterprise, like mom and pop's applepie bakery, will benefit from them.
Socialism and capitalism must balance each other in order to achieve maximum utility and harmony.
Lastly, as was already pointed out, the habit of pushing responsibility for federal services downwards to the local level is in reality most often just a short-sighted excuse for getting rid of state expenditure. This is true all over the world, not just in the United States.
#205 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential » 2004-09-12 23:28:53
However the US has one advantage its population is still growing, which could help for paying the future debts. Unlike Europe and Japan which has a population getting older and older and hardly any fresh blood.
It's probably a combination of society being so complicated and demanding that people don't even consider children until they're over 30 and all the evils of feminism which causes nice guys to shy away from the mating market alltogether (or becoming unsuccesful in it) while still representing the best potential providers. In the age of housewives it used to be the male got a deal out of marriage and children, being able to count on support and relaxation at the home front, not anymore (although that doesn't exactly cover Japan where women are not yet deluded to the bone). Furtermore, when both parents are obliged to work in order to maintain a minimum standard of living, who's there to provide for the children?
Anyhow, I think it's largelly a question of social structures, which could be remedied by other policies and ideas. By the way, I've heard American demographics aren't that great looking either.
About oil. I think if certain people really wanted the oil price could be much lower. And perhaps it will be in the future when finally the russian pipelines start working.
Or it could be they don't want to since peek oil is looming.
Also I think putting more burdens on local authorities is better. For an average American person in a highly populated and rich state there may not be a lot of change but it would make some states more attractive for investments that would have gone in foreign plants. And with this system if a state has bad budget it will not pull down the whole country like now a bad federal budget would do.
The point is when you put more burdens on local authorities you miss the benefits of rational centralization, co-ordination and specialization, making several bodies all trying to do the same thing on their own that don't interact very well or haven't the resources to handle the same obligations.
#206 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Dose of Hard, Cold, Economic Reality - International Cooperation is Essential » 2004-09-12 17:46:13
Indeed, when the depression strikes, Mars will be off the table for decades worldwide. What will happen to the Chinese export oriented economy as US demand plummets to 1930's levels? The answer is obvious.
On the other hand, implosive crisis to the capitalist system of this sort can spark unexpected political developments. This has happened before and with a redrawing of the political and ideological map, who knows, space expansion might just happen to be placed in the forefront of governmental goals.
#207 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-12 17:31:55
comstar wrote:
I must be in a rare bred of private enterprise, because I know that development of space isn't a national goal for a country unless it is made into a national goal. But a private enterprise comprising of talented and committed individual that want to develop space will succeed.
I think Martian Republic answered this question quite well in his latest reply above even though it might not have been his intention.
It's all about the greens. Free enterprise won't invest the amounts of capital needed for an exceedingly long perspective of uncertain returns, but a government, not relying on profit, can.
Private enterprise typically uses infrastructure and institutions already in place, it does not fund them.
#208 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-12 17:21:56
RobS, it could be I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
First, I was under the impression a VTOVL couldn't make it much further than LEO, in which case the cycler also needs to launch from there.
Secondly, if you have a high ISP and relatively high thrust vehicle, like for instance a GCNR cycler, wouldn't there be several more launch windows open than pure Hohman transfers, because of the ability to "bend" trajectories that otherwise would be prohibitable because of high delta V requirements?
#209 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-11 00:23:28
Private enterprise will never take the lead into space. There are naturally practical limits to the amounts a state can put up as well, yet this route does make things possible. Tourism won't pay, it's a minor bonus at best, like fitting terminals with railroad restaurants.
comstar, you should begin by asking yourself how much taxpayer expenditure is enough for how long and where's the profit! Flooding the terran market with PGM's won't help you know.
NASA will spend something like 15 billion dollars on space for the upcoming year and that barely manages to keep two people circling in LEO. Go figure.
#210 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-09-10 14:08:49
Gennaro,
I realized you answered me, I see you are in your little sandbox, not understanding the larger environment. Look at the cost of doing the space station NASA's way extremely exensive and not use long term. profitable methods and long term approaches for space colonization and expansion.
The reason for a spacedock facilities on the moon is where large scale vessels can be build effectively. Larger components can be moved without weight / gravity factor is higher than earth. The spacedock is a century or more facility not like the ISS max of 30 years.
It comes down to a short term approach Vs long term approach for humanity in space. I take the long term approach because once the facilities / infrastructure is in place then you just keep expanding and expanding with little infrastructure development until your demand excess supply. That won't be within the first space exploration century of humans in space.
I see the moon as the industrial processing complex for earth and humanity for the next few centuries and then for the Inner Sphere of humanity until we need to move from this solar system.
I am looking at Mars and the first colonization point for humanity not a purely industrial and manufacturing location. So, I think you have the moon and mars mixed up in terms of the functions and uses for each body.
Having it mixed up I think not. Truth is the moon offers potential industrial prospects and zero prospects for colonization (by which I mean elementary self-sufficiency), while Mars offers both.
And the ISS, why do you bring up such junk? I've never included it in my plans nor do I think orbital space stations have any practical use in a space transportation sense. The moon is also superior to orbital stations as a shipyard because the platform is already there and the body has many raw materials in place, but its only advantage over earth is the gravity well, everything else constitute logistical and infrastructural nightmares.
You don't need a huge cargo bay switchboard in the sky or on the moon since spaceships in orbit can dock and you won't need oceanliner tonnage anytime soon because of the fledging state of human space presence and terran demand.
So what do you need for an actual integrated interplanetary transport system? I suggest the following:
1) You need heavy booster capacity for putting supposedly unmanned interplanetary cargo cyclers in place, going from LEO to any other orbit you may desire.
2) You need terran, supposedly unmanned, transgravity craft (SSTO/VTOVL) to dock with, exchange cargo and refuel your interplanetary cyclers.
3) You need more heavy boosters to ship entire SSTO's/VTOVL's to Mars, perhaps in easy to assemble kits, to do the same thing from Mars surface to MLO.
Note that you can refuel these ships entirely in situ on Mars, which isn't possible on the moon and probably have an easier time in continually developing servicing facilities.
4) You need custom-made, artificial gravity passenger cyclers for your personell and colonists.
It could be the moon will be a splendid location for shipyards in the future, but we're not there yet. You must learn how to crawl before you run. It could also be that the moon offers great mining opportunities, but neither in that case will you need the moon to get to Mars, since from a delta V point of view it's another destination entirely. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars; if you want to go to the moon go to the moon. Or as Napoleon would have it, "if you want to take Vienna, take Vienna!".
SpaceNut wrote:
So when will the real moon rush begin. When Nasa does not rely on contracts to get vehicles for the job. Factories could be turning out just what Nasa needs like clock work if it were not for the pork barrel process.
Couldn't agree more. When I take over and impose the new order upon Europe, guess what mistakes of "corporate management" I will entirely avoid! 
RobS wrote:
One argument he misses is the utilization of platinum-group metals (PGMs). The lunar regolith is up to 1% nickel-iron, which can easily be concentrated magnetically, and higher concentrations should be easy to find via magnetic anomalies. Nickel-iron is an excellent source of PGMs; higher than most terrestrial ores (which are usually a mix of terrestrial materials with nickel-iron from ancient impacts). PGMs are worth about 20 million per tonne, and the hydrogen economy, if it kicks in, will push up the demand because right now fuel cells need platinum catalysts. It may be possible to mine PGMs on the moon and on Mars more cheaply than on Earth. It will also be possible to mine it on near-earth asteroids, but they won't have the human infrastructure of a moon base (robotic repair is still a long way away). The moon will probably be the place where the technology to mine PGMs is developed and first used, and near earth asteroid mining will then have to compete with an existing industry; it will be a while before that is economic.
Dennis Wingo's new book, Moonrush, by the way, makes this argument about PGMs. It's a well thought out work.
Well, I say. As you might have noted I've made the argument about possible lunar PGM's above, in this as well as in other threads.
Well, ain't I clever? :laugh:
Now NASA is going to steal my ideas! :;):
#211 Re: Not So Free Chat » Your Inner Squirrel » 2004-09-09 15:15:42
Major Crazy Whiskers! :laugh:
...I like it.
#212 Re: Not So Free Chat » 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy » 2004-09-09 06:25:38
Well, well, I've been quoted!!
Dear Cindy, I feel so honoured! This is the first time that has ever happened.
Seems like I can get it right at least sometimes. :laugh:
#213 Re: Not So Free Chat » 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy » 2004-09-09 06:09:06
But by way of explanation of this particular "war on" the underlying idea is exactly what you suggest. Only we can't very well alleviate the poverty of the people in question when their nations are ruled by despots, nor can we educate them when those same despots control the national media. Human rights violations again require a change of who holds power. Military action, the "war" part is just the first step, followed by the much-maligned "nation building" which entails the points you raise.
One could also argue that the US has traditionally always drawn the "human rights" card whenever it was beneficial to some percieved interest and otherwise let it be.
Eliminating the conditions that breed terrorism is precisely the objective, which is why the use of military action to initiate it appears unfocused to anyone looking for clear causal reasons for each specific move. "War on Terror" really isn't the best term, but they could hardly call it the "War on Militant Fundamentalist Islamic Terror" now could they, what with all the PC BS we're mired in.
If this was a war on "Militant Fundamentalist Islamic Terror" why hasn't secular regimes been backed instead of attacked?
Israel isn't really that big a factor. It's a convenient rallying point, but not the major root cause. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow the terrorists would continue, this time with a new central theme.
That really all boils down to who's holding the strings and how policy-making is actually carried out.
#214 Re: Not So Free Chat » 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy » 2004-09-09 05:22:30
Possibly. I don't necessarily vouch for the article but it does seem to present a lot of empirical conjecture (given that the claims, for instance about the operation of the US congress, aren't false).
If I'm allowed some theorizing, Saudi Arabia is already in the pocket isn't it? As far as I know the coalition is the best guarantee the royal house has for its continual existence.
Besides, Saudi Arabia didn't present a credible target, having supported the Allies during Gulf War I and everything. Iraq did, or at least could be trumped up. And who says this is primarily about getting bin Ladin and his sort? As long as that boogie man and Muslim fundamentalist terrorism remains, the powers that be benefits from the boost of credibility it offers.
What they may percieve as their strategic enemies could be secular Arab powers of the kind Saddam, Nasser and Khaddafi have represented. People who are able to actually question the legitimacy of the Jewish state. In that sense crazy bomb throwers are the best enemies the Zionist faction can get.
This would be long-term and not dependant on what threat Iraq represented for the time being. Correct, it was no threat. But what military threat do countries like Iran or Syria represent? None either. Even so there have at times been much talk about how they should be attacked as well.
And the aggressiveness towards Iraq started long before 9/11. Even the writings of leading neocons reveal as much. Something strange happened at the end of the 80's. Hussein the anti-Islamist hero suddenly turned into Saddam the wretched, because of that little Kuwait intermezzo. He's even alleged to have contacted US officials shortly before the invasion to question whether he was allowed to march in and got what he percieved as a favourable (i.e non-committal) reply.
If so why would he be certain he wasn't allowed to attack it? The west hadn't cared one cent about him starting the war on Iran. On the contrary, western media during the 80's made his regime a bulwark for western interests.
Looked from the other end, how stupid could the man be?
#215 Re: Not So Free Chat » 911 three years on - terrorism is our common enemy » 2004-09-09 01:54:05
I *still* don't understand this "war on terror" idea...
It's like saying war on war, really... Fighting the symptoms, like every terrorist is the same, but you have political terrorists, crazy terrorist, extreme left-right-Christian,Muslem, sect, drug-crazed, aliens rule the government... terrorists...
Right on!
Islam is of course an expansionistic religion by its very nature. Still, it takes a bit of aggravating to get Muslim people to behave like super-Beibars and get on such a retarded program in this day and age.
Who wanted a "war on terror"? The neocons. What special place does Israel occupy in every neocon's heart? Connect the dots.
It really has nothing to do with oil.
With the risk of being labeled anti-American (I'm not), I think this article might be worth reading:
http://antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467 … cleid=3467
As for Chechnya it's been going on for years and it also has a long history of primarily Communist oppression before that. It's a provincial matter in some sense, which doesn't mean it isn't important and entails a risk of a central Asian domino none of us would like becoming a reality. It's just that even if Israel was discontinued as a state I'm sure it would have zero impact on the Chechnyan independence movement/terrorists, while that concern is highly important driving force for the Arabs and bin Ladin.
And then of course we have these guys who doubt the 9/11 scenario alltogether. The Pentagon conspiracy thesis is probably the most extreme of their theories. Pretty cool flash movie on the matter (and since they they're often lefties as well wanting to equate Bush with Hitler - certainly a very inappropriate comparison, one wonders if they even faintly understand what Adolf is talking about in the introductionary sequence?):
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.htm … tagon.html
#216 Re: Not So Free Chat » Put the wall back UP, Gorby? » 2004-09-08 15:28:06
I believe it's exaggerated. Truth is the Bundesestablishment is growing ever less popular overall because of its neoliberalist economical agenda and PC immigration policy. It just isn't as apparent on the surface in the west since the east was never subjected to the same multi-culturalist brainwashing for generations. I mean, in Germany, France and Switzerland they even put people in prison for doubting the existence of certain historical features of WWII, like the gas chambers. Freedom of speech?
You could perhaps interpret the ongoing nagging between east and west as a widening rift, but I think very few would actually want the wall back. You'd find those people on the extreme left perhaps, not among the real opposition, or at least not in any form that will last. To me it smacks of trumped-up excuses on part of the Bonn establishment.
As the east Germans get ever more westernized and economically integrated this kind of quarrel will blow away like so much wind.
I wouldn't say the antipathy doesn't exist, it does. It's just not politically pivotal.
#217 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ? » 2004-09-08 09:11:11
What if intelligent life is fairly common but for whatever reason we're the most technologically advanced in this galaxy? What if we really are the oldest sentient species in the universe? Someone has to be first, and it would explain a few things.
Perhaps we are the invaders some other emerging civilization has nightmares about.
I believe everyone has toyed with this thought at one time or another. After all, our star is no newcomer either. It's been around for over a third of the age of the universe and only now has it developed critical levels of intelligence.
But then again there are still places like this, twice our age and even more suited for life, at least in terms of heavy elements:
http://www.solstation.com/stars/dpavoni … avonis.htm
Frankly I think it's a mistake to assume other sentient beings elsewhere in the cosmos are as disgruntled and violent as humankind has tended to be. It seems to also indicate a desire to justify our behaviors (ala "everyone else does it!"). Maybe the galaxy's psychos are right *here* (I'll exclude myself, though...thanks).
Yeah, on the other hand it seems safe to assume that natural selection plays its part everywhere, which would imply that their background is about as violent as ours, give or take. It's all about whether the spirit at some point manages to break away from nature and its fundamental characteristic which is struggle.
Some more considerations on the 'impactor warfare' scenario, which in any event will require a huge energy investment. It's apparent it would only be useful against intelligence not yet having achieved starflight. Where are they to launch it from, the Kuiper Belt? We'll control it in the future, spot them and take action. If anything 'we cannot allow an impactor gap!' Do it against a medival society? They won't be dangerous for another thousand years and no foreign policy survives that long. In other words, cosmically speaking, the psychos will have to locate us within an terribly small time window.
In addition, if they are reasonably independent individuals, they would also need to muster the political will to do it. Maybe the interstellar equivalent of a neocon regime could be heartless enough to persuade its witless citizens of such a 'pre-emptive' monstrosity, but for how long would the regime remain in place?
Third. As sentience spreads out from a central point of origin, due to the immense distances and communication lags involved, political control will only extend so far. In regard to a central power at least, a policy of mandatory destruction of alien life seems quite impossible to maintain over lightyears and centuries, again provided we deal with individuals.
For instance, I entertain no expectation that humans on 82 Eridani will take any decisions based on Terran leadership. It simply takes too long for orders to get through, neither would they in a material sense depend upon Sol.
The Eridanians will have their own little empire for sure and be less integrated in the affairs of the greater humanity than a far off Corinthian colony or a medieval feudum.
#218 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ? » 2004-09-08 06:13:58
The Aliens will be the survivors, annihilators of most life forms on their planet;
possibly exterminators of other Alien planets.
-
Will they like us raw, boiled, or fried; cage a few of us in a zoo ?
Will we be lucky and be asked to join an alliance against their enemy ?
-
Alien commanders will want efficient destruction.
This is getting weirder and weirder. 
Hum, if they've destroyed most life on their homeplanet, how do they survive and sustain themselves?
If we "join an alliance" with your favvo aliens, how long before they turn against us in order to annhiliate an unnecessary risk? And how do we explain our behaviour to other peaceful neighbours? Ganging up with the galaxy's psychos doesn't strike me as such a good idea.
It could be that aggressive species gain an edge in survival because of their unprejudiced attitude towards the rare wonders of matter (alien prokaryotes), so in the end the universe would only consist of such "survivors". On the other hand, one could ask how popular such a species would be if becoming known. Me at least wouldn't have any regrets about annihilating them and so wouldn't any other eventual neighbour. Seems they would sooner or later face the odds stacked against them.
Indeed, if such aggressiveness had evolved I wonder how they could manage to get to the space fairing stage at all before wiping themselves out.
I believe in universal love.
By the way, excellent links! Especially intrigued by the periodical galactic devastation thesis in order to solve Fermi's paradox. Like the Germans say, "echt Klasse"!
#219 Re: Life on Mars » Drake Equation??? Humbug!!!!! » 2004-09-06 09:34:04
I just feel bad for the guys living on a 2x Earth. How are they going to achieve spaceflight?
#220 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Prudent or Paranoid ? - Have radio transmissions doomed Man ? » 2004-09-06 03:09:07
Well, then they better hurry up!
Say it takes 500 years to get here (including the time to catch our signal). By that time we will have expanded to the limits of this solar system and probably settled on some new ones as well (provided of course western man and European culture survives the present century, managing to deflect today's suicidal policies).
By the way, has anyone thought about how far our electromagnetical signals will go before being absorbed by the interstellar medium? Have a hunch that weak things like radio waves might peter out, somehow.
Personally, I believe they'll be delighted and curious to see us, just like we.
#221 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Hey, hey, hey, wait up - Mars is not a country » 2004-09-06 00:53:39
Didn't read the whole thread through. Just want to comment on this:
Not quite. In a Monarchy, the Executive of the State is granted his title by God and by the right of Birth. The attitude of the subjects is made meaningless, they exsist for the Monarch to rule. The Monarch is given his title and power based on who he is, not his ability.
I'm not sure this definition of monarchy is true; judging from history in fact I'm sure it's not.
Take Scandinavia for example. In Denmark and Sweden kings were elected until the 1500's (in Sweden heredity was introduced in 1523). Since there wasn't a class of nobles until the late Middle Ages in this country, kings were by definition recruited from the 'peasantry' for centuries, albeit from the rich and powerful of the lot.
And when heredity was finally introduced, it was more in an effort on part of the autocrat to balance the infuence of the aristocracy. The king himself tended to seek support from the people in order to neutralize a truly self serving oligarchy.
One sees this pattern repeating itself throughout history. Rome's shift from the republic to the rule of the ceasars was basically about the same thing.
Neither was the idea that the king got his power from God an original concept in this country. Moreover, the concept of traditional rights for the populace always existed here and in the popular mind, the task of the king was essentially to serve the community, not the other way around.
In fact, I'm not really sure where to draw the line between monarchy and modern dictators like Mussolini or Hitler, apart from in name only. Interestingly, on the other hand, Hitler promoted what he called a republic (which is evident from the table-talks), by which he meant that heredity was bound to corrupt the state, perhaps especially considering the amount of power concentrated in the hands of the führer.
Just my small contribution to the discussion.
#222 Re: Not So Free Chat » Ultimate Rock 'n Roll Song » 2004-09-06 00:06:08
Pleased to meet you, Strummer! You're right, I've never met such a civil board as New Mars to be honest. Maybe it's the general IQ level or something, don't know.
Downloaded that song "Story in Your Eyes". Never heard about it before, but than again I've never listened much to Moody Blues in the first place.
All of you, if you want a *real* rocker from the sixties (well 1970), I've got another one. What about "Mississippi Queen" by Mountain? :laugh:
#223 Re: Not So Free Chat » Ultimate Rock 'n Roll Song » 2004-09-05 22:48:14
Cream, indeed. I like Cream to almost anything. Wonder if "Sunshine of Your Love" might be one of the most covered rock songs of all time? The 5th Dimension made a pretty good version of it.
Cindy, if you like the more melodious 60's sound rather than the R&B influenced variety and you for instance have Soulseek, maybe you should check out The Zombies (if you haven't already)?
I could recommend "She's not There" and "Time of the Season". Great music.
The Zombies:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=am … cm965o3epf
One of my favourite 60's songs which has a significant feel to it is also "Woodstock", but it should be the version by Matthews Southern Comfort, not the one by Joni Mitchell or Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.
EDIT: "Tomorrow Never Knows", oh yes, I remember now. At the end of Revolver, right? Funny, that used to be my favourite from that album as well, number two would probably be "She Said, She Said". We seem to share a lot of musical taste.
"Tomorrow Never Knows" falls into a specific 'album end category' which I have established in my mind. Other examples of that would be "It's Alright Ma" from Dylan's Bringing it All Back Home or "The Black Angels's Death Song" on Andy Warhol by The Velvet Underground. (Of course, objectively speaking it makes absolutely no sense at all.)
#224 Re: Unmanned probes » Cassini-Huygens - Cassini-Huygens Discussion » 2004-08-30 05:19:00
I agree. Those Saturn images appear unreal. Almost painted.
#225 Re: Human missions » The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program » 2004-08-30 04:55:11
We have made assumptions on the make up of the moon, if the assumptions are correct in the evolution of the planets and moons then the moon has the same mineral structure as earth, and we haven't found it yet. I think you need to develop an overview understanding of the current solar system and lay out a new inner planetary system for the next century or so ahead up to 2125. ( all of us are dead and dust but our legacy will live on and upwards )
Please, comstar, I'm aware of the current evidence for the formation of the moon and like you I used to suppose it should have a material structure much like earth since after all it's only a chunk of earth that's up there. That was until I began reading up on the subject. Granted, I guess a lot of the information we have comes from the Apollo samples which are incomplete and there's much left to be done. Hopefully, it will turn out like you and I hope and the moon will have a more diversified material structure than currently supposed.
One of the last books I read however, World Building by Stephen L. Gillet - actually a sort of guide for science fiction authors, but nevertheless written from a professional perspective - states that the moon material mostly is composed by terran crust, that is the lighter 'scrap' material from on top. If this is true, the moon will generally be a poorer world in terms of heavy elements than the earth, not least since the earth continually renew its crust material from the mantle by the dynamics of plate tectonics.
Now, I'm not anti-moon and I agree we need to plan ahead in the long run and big perspective, I only doubt the moon is instrumental in human settlement of the solar system, especially in its early stages. Mars is a world that basically has everything to make it self-sustainable, including biogenics and volatiles, and to create a civilization, the moon hasn't got these things.
Secondly, you write somewhere above about economics of scale on earth supporting rapid growth, well yes the paycheck of an engineer does translate into generate aggregate demand, but the time and means spent on a space program is nothing but wasted capital until the population on earth can gain from linkage into the interplanetary economy or benefit from its offshoots.
Thriving communities off earth, wherever they are, are totally irrelevant from the perspective of the tax payer as long as this link isn't established. The question therefore is not what we can build on the moon, but what the moon has to offer us.
You say it's a huge platform for constructing spaceships outside the gravity well. Well, disregarding the detriment offered by hard radiation and vacuum and the need to import several crucial elements, I guess I agree. The thing is such plans are on the mega scale while possible demand for off world generated products remains limited for the time being. You simply cannot flood the earth with platinum group metals for example, the world consumption of which are in the hundred of tonnes range yearly, without suffering a substantial drop in prices, making a premature mega investment highly unprofitable.
As precious metals, like the platinum group (in addition to deuterium for fusion reactors) are things that can be supplied from Mars as well as from asteroids, what do we need for starting off interplanetary commerce? We need a limited fleet of cyclers and transgravity craft, not overcapacity. Such cycler ships can be supplied by heavy launchers from earth much easier and more cheaply than creating gigantic infrastructure on the moon where there currently isn't anything at all but rocks and forbidding conditions.