You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Offline
Never mind the link!LoL
"I was watching some sci fi movie on the sci fi channel today; it was a cheap sci fi exclusive going to mars movie; from my reading of Ben Bova's "Mars" books, I can tell where they got the story line, but then I realized why we have not and will not establish a permanent space colony independent of earth untill some private effort gets the ability.
Number one: what's in it for the public that isn't going to go? Don't even give me the spin-off propaganda . . .
Number two: what's in it for a government? They'll get overrun just like Britain did from the USA. When space colony advocates try to use history as reason's for going to space like the china failure and so on and so forth, I guarantee you the first thing that goes through the politicians heads is the whole British loosing control of the american colonies fiasco. "
Offline
flashgordon:
Re. The Public--how about a nightly reality sitcom wherein the raw camera videos from agreed upon ship-time en trasit are edited and presented as sponsored entertainment. On Mars, the outside activities with background scenery could be included with the sitcom involving habitat life. If you don't think that would be interesting, why are you here?
Re. China failure--what failure? They're off and away to the Moon, already, as far as they're concerned. Very exciting to watch them repeat in Fast Foreward what we accomplished in the sixties, only this time to stay. USA: Eat your heart out!
Re. Knowing history, they say, is what keeps you from unknowingly repeating what happened that was bad in the past ... one reason we should preserve old films.
Re. What's in it for the government? Which government? Which administration? Which country for that matter? What's government got to do with space travel anyway, in the long run? They only count the future in times-between-elections. Get off your dependence hang-ups for gosh sakes, and start contrubuting ideas to the cause ... which, I believe, is Mars?
Offline
I find your reply confusing the issues; one of which is that china stopped exploring around the fifteen hundreds after making great tech progress and then regressed.
What does governement have to do with space indeed; no wonder we can't get to space; we all have different secret needs and desires; that is one lesson I've learned from trying to tell people what's wrong with people's understanding of what's going on and the role of space in it.
Offline
Hey flash...whoaoooo...he's gonna save every one of us!
It seems you've been reading a bit of Zubrin's work.
I could come up with a whole bunch of reasons for a politician to support Mars exploration: Eternal fame, A show of military might (especially for a non-U.S. politician), Land grabs (those treaties are outdated anyway), Establish primary contact with martian settlements (they will be there some day so might as well get there first). There are lots of politically viable reasons for Mars exploration. I think the whole problem, though, is how you sell Mars.
It seems to me that there are a lot of good engineers and scientists that have answered the question "How?". They have also done a good enough job to keep us in LEO for all these years. They just don't seem to answer (for the politicians) the question "Why?" I think the Mars movement needs a few more business people - not engineers-turned-business-owners. We need professional business people with proven track records who can sell. We need some 'closers'.
What do you think?
Offline
We have all kinds of business guy's trying to win the X-prize; why didn't these people explain themselves to the governments of the world?(i suspect it is because of that 1967 no governments establishing themselves on another planet treaty)
In the end, politics and money will get us out there. The reason why we went to the moon was because Russia scared americans about other countries science and technology capabilities; we didn't want to be left behind.
Offline
i suspect it is because of that 1967 no governments establishing themselves on another planet treaty)
Well, Flash I do agree with you, and I believe that maybe some form of ammendment could possibly be added, like, lets say through the UN, that would allow for small land grants to countries. But make it impossible for a planet to be owned by a single body/country/company. I am all for any realistic plan that would help garnish support for a manned mission to Mars, with the eventual goal being a semi-permanent or permanent base. (I just finished Entering Space by Zubrin)
The other thing that really needs to be hammered home is the fact that even though Mars Direct and other similiar projects use 'off-the-shelf' materials, over time, the trickle down effects of technology would be noticed. this and other little things could defer a fraction of the cost of such a mission. but by and large it will be something that does cost a lot of money and sometimes it's hard to get when the 'public' does not see Mars as something that is a pressing issue. So, I am worried about how soon we will see an ambitious effort to goto Mars.
We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.
Offline
Pages: 1