New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2251 Re: Not So Free Chat » George W. Bush - Tough on Terror? » 2004-09-02 06:43:59
We're pulling too many punches, backing off too often and too late. Letting too many enemies slip away.
But this isn't so much a GW Bush problem as an American problem. We're not only tread overly lightly out of concern for what every leftist euro-peon and third world dictator with a UN seat will think of us, but because we no longer have the stomach for what needs to be done. We need to be hard but fair to kill our enemies while winning at least grudging acceptance from the civilian population. We're too hung up on the perception of fair and squeamish about hard.
I agree and disagree.
Unless we unite to fight this war as you propose, to talk tough but then act weak is the worst of all possible strategies.
#2252 Re: Not So Free Chat » George W. Bush - Tough on Terror? » 2004-09-01 22:05:09
Didn't we cave at Fallajuh and Najaf? How can anyone say the US has been tough on terror?
The bad guys who mutiliated those American contractors in Fallajuh, did we ever bring them to justice?
Sadr's people kidnap the father of the mayor Najaf and drag him through the streets of Basra. They kidnap and murder the mayor's brother-in-law. Why? Because the mayor is pro-American. Sistani shows up, we make a deal and invite Sadr to enter the political arena.
Who will be pro-American tomorrow if Sadr can kill the families of collaborators with impunity?
What about that arrest warrant for Sadr?
Why exactly was the town of Najaf reduced to rubble only to allow the chief target walk away scot free?
Tough on terror? Don't talk tough if you can't walk the walk.
#2253 Re: Not So Free Chat » Empire vs Rebel Alliance » 2004-09-01 20:25:04
More David Brin on Star Wars:
Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, "That's sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it's a big human who can get past that."
In other words a royal figure or demigod, anointed by fate. (Like a billionaire moviemaker?)
Lucas often says we are a sad culture, bereft of the confidence or inspiration that strong leaders can provide. And yet, aren't we the very same culture that produced George Lucas and gave him so many opportunities? The same society that raised all those brilliant experts for him to hire -- boldly creative folks who pour both individual inspiration and cooperative skill into his films? A culture that defies the old homogenizing impulse by worshipping eccentricity, with unprecedented hunger for the different, new or strange? It what way can such a civilization be said to lack confidence?
In other words, the motto of George W. Bush!
WRONG, but STRONG! No girlie men allowed.
#2254 Re: Pictures of Mars » Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . . » 2004-08-31 21:44:19
David Brin (sci-fi writer) has written some great stuff about Star Wars and Star Trek. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature … n/]Example
Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun?
Also, Lord of the Rings. I mean imagine the pain of all those poor Orc orphans! :;):
http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html]More linkmania! Read 'em all!
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/1 … _brin/]JRR Tolkien, Enemy of Progress
Were any orcs or "dark men" offered coalition positions in King Aragorn's cabinet, at the end of the War of the Ring? Was Mordor given a benign Marshall Plan?
I think not.
#2255 Re: Pictures of Mars » Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . . » 2004-08-30 18:27:43
Still, we're trying to keep things as realistic as possible, no exploding consoles, no sound in space, and one of my peeves no brightly lit ships in deep space!
See first, shoot first, kill first. Total EmCon - - emissions control.
Radiate nothing, light, radar, radio, x-rays. Nothing.
#2256 Re: Not So Free Chat » Any poets? - Comments, CONSTRUCTIVE critisism, ideas. » 2004-08-28 19:15:47
Chicago in summer, ain't it grand?
Rain?
Yup, lots of it.
A cool, wet summer. Cooler and wetter than usual.
#2257 Re: Not So Free Chat » Canadian Politics » 2004-08-27 12:13:21
Cobra writes:
The thing about missile defense is that it's technolgy that didn't really work until after its day had passed. If we build it now it will probably never be used, in effect wasting billions, and it only has a 50-70 percent accuracy rate anyway.
Uh oh - - we agree again.
Are my ideas rubbing off on you, or the reverse?
#2258 Re: Pictures of Mars » Favorite Sci-Fi Movie? - Blade Runner for me. . . » 2004-08-26 21:14:25
Top http://www.badmovies.org/movies/darkstar/]tongue in cheek entry.
It was really funny when I saw it back in 1978.
#2259 Re: Not So Free Chat » Religion vs Science » 2004-08-25 14:11:48
So if the Almighty himself were to come down to my desk here. . . and turn my Coke into Pepsi, I'd have to reconsider the nature of the universe.
Coke into Pepsi? Nah. That would be Satan.
#2260 Re: Human missions » Moon vs Mars? - What did President Bush intend? » 2004-08-25 12:15:11
On Mars, More Water From Pricey Plumbing
What do you do with all the waste on the long journey to Mars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/scien … 4mars.html
What do you do with all the sh^t?
Incinerate it at 600 or 800 Celsius; and recover the water; and distill the water if you are squeamish); and add the powder to your compost pile. Easy enough. :;):
A NASA study has determiend that wheatgrass burns nicely to make activated charcoal which is needed to filter the waste gases from the above process. Grow wheatgrass in hydroponics, transform into activated charcoal and then filter the gases emitted from the waste incineration.
No big deal.
#2261 Re: Human missions » Funding human missions - Lets chat basics » 2004-08-23 21:57:04
Sunday morning at the Mars Society convention I lstened to an interesting exchange between Bob Zubrin and George Whitesides (NSS) about the Aldridge Commission Report. Essentially, Zubrin wanted to toss the whole Aldridge report in the waste-basket or flush it somewhere worse. :;):
Whitesides tried to take a more "glass is 1/2 or 1/3 full" approach saying that at least Aldridge Commission called for increasing private sector involvement in space.
My big question is HOW can the private sector contribute? IMHO, there are NO profit making models involving mining or manufacturing or resource exploitation (which includes solar power) that will pay-off in less than many decades, if then.
Big investment PLUS high risk to capital PLUS no assured return on investment PLUS very long delay between money in and money out (if the investor gets lucky on the other risk factors) means no private sector investment.
Like I said in my first post, tangible goods are a decreasing percentage of the cost or value of any product, be it
gym shoes or Coca-Cola (how much of that $150 does Nike pay for materials or labor?) or
silicon chips (its the design not the sand that matters and multi-billion dollar chip stamping plants are only feasible if billions of chips are sold meaning goodwill & marketshare is vital)
or even automobiles.
Therefore, why would anyone think mining lunar resources or NEO resources for export to Earth will earn a single penny of NET profit?
Lunar oxygen is worth $1500 per pound in LEO, not a dime more. If Earth to LEO launch costs fall, that value falls. And I see no conceivable way anyone can extract lunar O2 for $1500 per pound delivered to LEO.
If the lunar or NEO mine cost merely $10 billion to deploy (Hah!) and shipping to LEO was free and operations costs were zero you would still need to sell 67,000 pounds of O2 per year just to pay the interest on your $10 billion mining operation with no profit and no recoupment of the principal investment. If the lunar operation cost $50 billion to build, then the first 335,000 pounds of O2 shipped to LEO pays the interest for one year.
= = =
That said, Nike currently spends $1.4 billion per year on sponsorship.
At the Mars Society conference I passed out a poll question in my paper session. I will rearrange it here.
If Nike would pay $250 million per year for 15 years to put its swoosh on flight suits; and
IBM would pay $350 million per year for 15 years to add its logo to the network architecture for the Mars vessel and every astronaut on Mars was given a souped up, custom IBM ThinkPad; and
NBC would pay $10 billion for exclusive broadcast rights (subject to extensive requirements for syndication and release of science data); and
that made the difference in Congress paying for Mars, or not; what would you say?
[1] GO - - FOR - - IT !!!!
[2] Well okay, but I am worried.
[3] Really don't know.
[4] Tempted, but no. Sorry.
[5] Over my cold dead body!
= = =
If we do not seek private sector involvement through media, marketing and sponsorship, can we realistically expect private sector involvement in any other way?
And if we do not seek private sector funding then it all needs to come from the taxpayers, right?
#2262 Re: Human missions » Funding human missions - Lets chat basics » 2004-08-23 15:23:25
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv … ne.html]Dr Lee Valentine writes:
Preservation and prosperity of humanity on the Earth and human settlement of circumsolar space is the goal, we must concentrate on a commercial path to get there. NASA must enable new markets, not compete in them. Nonterrestrial materials are the key to opening the space frontier and should be the focus of new NASA initiatives. NEO mining serves two purposes, defense and material supply. Scientific missions must be undertaken to assay resources and plan NEO diversion. Use the advantages of space: manufacture and assembly in space.
Lets chat about this - -
Is it realistic to expect ANY profits from resource utilization or space manufacturing?
Next quote:
Space solar power is a trillion dollar market and should be fully explored, and NASA is crucial to this effort, platinum group metals will eventually be important. Obtaining economic benefits from commercial space including tourism and space solar power and platinum group metals as well as traditional markets should be the major thrust of our space enterprise.
Man to Mars is a diversion we can't afford. Human settlement of the space frontier is an end in itself but will follow naturally large-scale extraction of nonterrestrial resources and construction of space solar power stations, either on the moon or in orbit. Space tourism is a real market and the necessary evolution from small stations like Mir and ISS to real space hotels will necessitate the incorporation of fully closed life-support systems. These could be considered the first space colonies. The likelihood is that space tourism will greatly drive down the cost of space access over the next two decades. Space tourism may even provide a relatively near term market for lunar or asteroidal water.
Space solar power? I am comfortable refuting that business proposal with a corollary of Enrico Fermi's argument "Where is everyone" - - if space solar power was economically viable, Bechtel and Halliburton could be in that busines today flying Russian boosters at $1000 - $1500 per pound to LEO.
Space minerals and mining? Tangible assets are becoming less and less important to the market capitalization of major corporations.
Read http://www.interbrand.com/best_brands_0 … l.pdf]this report from August 2004.
These people assert the "value" of IBM's brand is $53 billion dollars. IBM has a total http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& … BM+]market capitalization of about $140 billion dollars.
Someone stop me if I am wrong, but this suggests that over 1/3 of the total value of IBM's stock price is tied up in the intangible asset known as "brand identity" or business goodwill.
How does this apply to space investment?
Spending money on media and marketing rights or sponsorship of space missions will very likely provide positive return on investment LONG BEFORE a single penny is ever made from investing in mining and manufacture.
Nike is the "big dog" of sponsorship spending at $1.4 billion per year. Currently, one round of Summer and Winter Olympics generate over $600 million in sponsorship revenues.
= = =
Private sector space is essential to a robust and sustainable space program. If we exclude intangible business investments such as advertising, media deals and marketing/sponsorship rights, where will the first dollar of private sector investment come from?
Lets chat.
#2263 Re: Human missions » MarsDirect or Mars Sustained ? » 2004-08-22 22:07:18
Mars direct, isn't a great option, We need to survey the martian landscape for mining purposes first to have ore deposits for building a successful reason for settlement.
We need to develop a large volume of specialized space tools need to be developed it would be better to use the moon, for testing and research for off-world activities. ( Closeness to earth ) Also the long term development of Mars would be beeter managed from the moon. The moon is a HLV launch center for humanity to our solar system and beyond.
Don't look at this a Moon or Mars direct but what would benefit the process in the long term exploration for humanity.
All we need to "mine" is CO2 (scooped in from the atmosphere) and which we know exists in great abundance and H20 which we now also know is plentiful in the permafrost. (Okay, H probably as H20 but still H)
Touch and go on the Moon is perhaps an acceptable idea to try out the Mars hardware but otherwise there is nothing on the Moon that will sustain extended public support for a space program.
There is NOTHING that can be mined at a profit on the Moon.
Mars has
< 1 > Possible life (extant or fossils) AND
< 2 > Mars is the second safest planet to build permanent settlements (after Earth, obviously).
#2264 Re: Human missions » MarsDirect or Mars Sustained ? » 2004-08-22 19:59:42
The methods of "living off the land" have never been tested. Thus the reason for returning to the moon first.
There is little on the Moon to live off of.
= = =
PS - - Awesome convention in Chicago!
#2265 Re: Not So Free Chat » Aldridge Commission transcripts - Asking a little help » 2004-08-21 06:55:42
A while back I read and printed out a complete set of the testimony transcripts for the Aldridge Commission.
Now the URLs appear to have been taken down.
Can anyone point me towards a page that has the transcripts?
Not the Final Report, the transcripts.
#2266 Re: Human missions » Hubble mistake - Action needed » 2004-08-18 15:47:35
2: The last Shuttle must be on the ground by Dec 31 2010, by executive order. This leaves less than five years between RTF and this date to plan and prepare any mission.
Huh?
I recall GWB speaking in a firm voice at a press conference but when was the executive order signed? Can you link a copy?
I pretty much assume that when your bosses boss stands up and says "2010" that means 2010... NASA technicly answers to the Vice President.
Washington doesn't always work that way. . .
#2267 Re: Human missions » Hubble mistake - Action needed » 2004-08-18 14:43:07
2: The last Shuttle must be on the ground by Dec 31 2010, by executive order. This leaves less than five years between RTF and this date to plan and prepare any mission.
Huh?
I recall GWB speaking in a firm voice at a press conference but when was the executive order signed? Can you link a copy?
#2268 Re: Human missions » China The Dominant Superpower In 20 Years..... - What does this mean for US? » 2004-08-17 23:41:16
2. The one-child population means in about 40 years China faces a crisis over old age pensions that makes the challenge of Japan and Europe look simple. At that point, there will be a lot of impoverished elderly people in China, a group that traditionally is deferred to and who have a lifetime of experience in making themselves heard. They can be expected to absorb a lot of China's economic surplus in the mid twenty-first century.
-- RobS
Want to hear something creepy?
At the Moon-Mars Blitz I sat across from a fellow who appears to have a fairly good knowledge of China and speaks one of the major Chinese dialects fluently. He claims that the government in Beijing has an aggressive smoking campaign.
Not anti-smoking, but smoking.
Why? To reduce life expentancy among retirees. Get all the 30 and 40 year people hooked on a multi-pack per day habit of unfiltered cigarettes and voila! Pensioner problem solved.
???
True? I don't know but the fellow I was talking to did speak fluent Chinese.
#2269 Re: Not So Free Chat » Space quotes - Thoughts on this site? » 2004-08-17 20:41:56
http://www.spacequotes.com/]Does this site deserve a bookmark?
#2270 Re: Not So Free Chat » A new power point - on abrupt climate change » 2004-08-17 19:04:34
http://www.williamcalvin.com/talks/2004 … tm]William Calvin and abrupt climate change
#2271 Re: Not So Free Chat » I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world » 2004-08-17 15:50:48
I also disagree with conventional "leftist" or Marxist analysis that al Qaeda is a product of the rich capitalist West versus poor Muslims since the leaders of al Qaeda are by and large upper middle class or upper class, well educated people. Yet they do manipulate poverty for their advantage.
So, technically, that would be the marxist definition? Now I am a bit confused. Poor people reacting against the rich for exploiting them is the standard marxist def. but when the rich exploit poor people to react against other rich people. . . . I think where you are going is interesting.
How bout the fact that the arabs blame all the suicide bombings on us? I wonder how this factors into all this.
Israel and the United States is 'why' poor Muslims are poor - - naturally enough the Arab rulers promote this line of reasoning to deflect from their own failure at ruling well.
#2272 Re: Not So Free Chat » Who's going to the Mars Society convention? » 2004-08-17 12:24:56
I'm taking Wednesday off for driving time, it's a 12 hours 45 minute drive plus customs and gas stops...
Hopefully you have better luck at customs than I did going to the Toronto conference in '00. Findin' dog hair on my clothes all weekend. :angry: :laugh:
I'll definately try to catch everyone's presentations, hopefully scheduling allows it. And, if anyone wants to catch my heretical contribution it's on Sunday. Unless rescheduled again. ???
Lookin' forward to meeting some of the crew here. Arguing in real time is just so much more efficient.
The schedule allows little time for private argument.
That said, any NewMarsian who finds me and asks will be treated to one free drink - - domestic beer or equivalent - - no exotic call brands! Strohs for Cobra.
Just remember TANSTAAFL - - I will bend your ear in exchange.
#2273 Re: Not So Free Chat » I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world » 2004-08-17 10:20:57
Again, if we can catch 'em, great, but that doesn't protect anyone. Eliminating al Qaeda at the source is more effective than picking up individual cells on the chance they make a mistake.
Essentially this is a cultural or even religious undertaking. And since the defiant martyr is a powerful figure, crushing our opponents militarily doesn't help much.
I also disagree with conventional "leftist" or Marxist analysis that al Qaeda is a product of the rich capitalist West versus poor Muslims since the leaders of al Qaeda are by and large upper middle class or upper class, well educated people. Yet they do manipulate poverty for their advantage.
Using our military in a clumsy fashion makes mattes worse, not better. Our reaction to Sadr has transformed a minor cleric despised by esteemed leaders like Sistani into a symbol of national resistance.
And a quote from Juan COle:
Now that we are on Cheney, I wanted to respond to his recent sarcastic criticism of John Kerry for saying that we need to fight the war on terror sensitively.
' "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told an audience of veterans in Dayton, Ohio. '
Many pundits pointed out that George W. Bush had used exactly the same language about a sensitive approach to the war on terror, so that Cheney was implicitly criticizing his own superior.
But as a historian, I have to say that Cheney's statement is bizarre and uninformed. Let me just give one example. The practice round for World War II was fought in North Africa, then controlled by the Vichy French. Dwight Eisenhower developed Project Torch, involving the landing of US troops in Morocco and Algeria.
It was essential to the US effort that the French colonial soldiers be quickly won over and convinced not to put up stiff resistance to the invasion. The original plan would have explicitly used British naval power. But the Free French objected loudly to this plan, since they did not want the British Empire's ships anywhere near their North African possessions. The French and the British had old rivalries in this regard.
So Roosevelt and Eisenhower asked Churchill to keep the British navy in the background off Gibraltar and out of sight of the Moroccan coast. Churchill agreed.
That is, Roosevelt and Eisenhower had their successful landing in North Africa precisely because they were entirely willing to bend over backward to be sensitive to French feelings.
And that is the big difference between Cheney and Bush as wartime leaders on the one hand, and on the other Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Cheney and Bush are diplomatically tone deaf, projecting nothing but arrogance and being all too willing to humiliate traditional allies. They have no sensitivity. And it is for that reason that they have the U.S. stuck in Iraq with only one really significant military ally, the U.K. (the Italians only have 3,000 troops there, and most countries just a few hundred, which makes their presence a token one). They have perhaps permanently alienated all the countries that might have lent the U.S. a hand.
#2274 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights? » 2004-08-17 08:54:56
Prometheusunbound wrote "Historically, collective ownership has not succeeded in bringing much benefit to the 'owners' beyond mere survival."
Dude, Texaco and Bechtel are examples of the collective ownership of property. Should we outlaw corporations?
#2275 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Discuss Sam Dinkin's latest - Space Property Rights? » 2004-08-17 08:51:53
Well, though at the momment I think this is true, it can't go on forever, and indeed, we will eventually figure out the physically best way to avhieve some goal under whatever constraints.
Josh, this statement undermines (IMHO) the rest of your position. Goods cannot have zero value without infinite supply.
Are there limits to efficiency? Are there limits to information density? The more I ponder this the more I find myself staring at a funny Greek dude named Zeno.