Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-19 08:37:02

This is for SpaceNut ... I chose the Politics topic because this question for you has to do with the culture of this forum, and at its essence, that is politics.

Is there a mission statement somewhere, for the forum?

I ask because I am interested in trying a new direction for exploration, but I'm not sure it would fit in the historical pattern revealed by the forum archive.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-02-19 17:25:55

Thats a good question to research as it predates my joining.

So looking back in time to before my joining to see whom were admins and they are Adrian and Josh Cyer for those which maintained the board.

It started out as a mars blog set up by Adrian for the newmars address and while the wayback machine did have the ealry home page it was not promoting either name prominently on it. It had links back to mars society information and some other very good items. It was just starting to change out board content and upgrading the forum software for people to make use of at sub 1000 members to post to topics.
I did not find any early indication of a mission statement for either indicated back then.

http://www.marsociety.org/bylaws/
http://nextgen4.marsociety.org/home/abo … claration/

louis · 2020-02-19 18:21:37

I was on the Red Colony site before I was on here. Red Colony had perhaps a sharper focus on the actual colonisation process whereas I think New Mars has always had a strong interest in Mission One architecture, including rocketry (which probably reflects Robert Zubrin's focus). Red Colony's roots could probably be traced back to what was called "the Mars Underground" - people who, after the Apollo Missions were done, in the 70s and 80s thought creatively about Mars colonisation - coming up with various "designs for living".

I think there has always been a tension between those interested in "how we get there" and those more interested in "what we do when we get there", not that the two are in any sense opposed.

I would suggest that we are now in another gear shift. It seems to me that Space X really are going to come through with a viable H2M (Humans to Mars) Mission - the first ever such mission. That is of course a complete game changer, because it means we must, for the first time, move from speculation to realisation.

While we all had and still have our favourite mission architectures, there is only going to be one that actually gets humans there in the next few years and that will be Musk's...and I think it will succeed by 2026.

So, I think that if you were looking for a mission statement for this forum going forward the only one that makes sense to me is: "To discuss and anticipate how Mars colonisation will unfold." Because it is definitely about to unfold!

tahanson43206 wrote:

This is for SpaceNut ... I chose the Politics topic because this question for you has to do with the culture of this forum, and at its essence, that is politics.
Is there a mission statement somewhere, for the forum?
I ask because I am interested in trying a new direction for exploration, but I'm not sure it would fit in the historical pattern revealed by the forum archive.
(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-02-19 19:15:41

I do remember as I was there as well as on MarsDrive and on Newmars prior to the crashes that left each hobbled...

kbd512 · 2020-02-19 21:29:16

Louis,

Unless you have a crystal ball, it's difficult to know what will happen in the next 6 years. I generally consider myself to be a member of the "count your chickens after they've hatched" school of thought. The idea that everyone else should give up on better ideas for how we could get to and colonize Mars, before anyone has been for the first time, just because SpaceX says they're going to do it, is more than a little presumptuous. I can understand the hero worship, but what I can't understand is myopic focus on that single plan, as if no others could succeed or SpaceX's plan is incapable of failure. I want to see humans get to Mars, period, and I don't care whether or not SpaceX gets the job done first or someone else.

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-19 21:41:48

for kbd512 re topic ...

In the next 6 years, the members of this forum could compose and publish a mission statement for the forum.

SpaceNut did some research, and the result appears to be that the forum just happened, and then things just happened to the forum, and now things are just still happening to the forum.

If you had a vote, what would you suggest as text for a mission for the forum?

(th)

louis · 2020-02-20 05:33:40

No crystal ball of course, but it's difficult to see what could stop Musk now. I'm basing my prediction on what is happening at Boca Chica which is (a) a lot and (b) being achieved at speed.

Musk's businesses - Tesla, solar, batteries and Space X all seem to be successful. Leaving aside his personal wealth, it looks like he will be able to draw on funds from an IPO for Starlink. This is all before seeking any commercial sponsorship for the mission, which could also generated billions if he wants to go down that route. He has the personal drive to succeed. As far as I can see, he has the right vehicle in Starship. Yes, it's going to take time to develop the rocket but, in principle, there doesn't seem be any major reason why it won't work.

What could stop the mission?

1. A change in the Presidency/Congress - people hostile to space exploration could conceivably put legal impediments in his way. It would be an act of petty politics, more ideology than anything else since Musk's Mars Mission isn't costing the US government anything.

2. The anti-exploration lobby in the space science community might succeed in persuading the US Government to block Space X's plans.

3. Catastrophic failure. Something like the Challenger disaster could put a brake on progress. This is probably the most serious of the risks facing Space X. I think Musk is aware of that danger and so will not risk humans on the rocket until it has been tested multiple times.

But even if Musk were blocked in the USA would that mean he would give up? Or would he move his operation somewhere else like Brazil, Argentina or India? I think he would be prepared to sacrifice the US link and move elsewhere if that's what it takes.

If nothing bad happens, then really Space X will probably be able to keep to the target of a 2022 cargo flight to Mars (no humans will be hurt in the making of that mission). If bad things happen, then you might see a delay of 1 to 4 years, still putting things in a mid 20s launch zone.

I've no objection to other plans to get to Mars, but no one else seems anywhere close to Space X, certainly not NASA, not even Blue Origin or JAXA or ESA or the Chinese. I can certainly see sense in addressing how the Starship approach could be improved upon e.g. a large 1G interplanetary transport vehicle from LEO to LMO might make sense in future, once Mars's industrial infrastructure has been established and the need for large cargo movements is removed. Then it will be more about transferring people rather than cargo.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
Unless you have a crystal ball, it's difficult to know what will happen in the next 6 years. I generally consider myself to be a member of the "count your chickens after they've hatched" school of thought. The idea that everyone else should give up on better ideas for how we could get to and colonize Mars, before anyone has been for the first time, just because SpaceX says they're going to do it, is more than a little presumptuous. I can understand the hero worship, but what I can't understand is myopic focus on that single plan, as if no others could succeed or SpaceX's plan is incapable of failure. I want to see humans get to Mars, period, and I don't care whether or not SpaceX gets the job done first or someone else.

kbd512 · 2020-02-20 08:15:47

tahanson43206,

I'd like to see a broader approach that explains to people why it is that living and working in space is humanity's ultimate destiny. A Mars colony is a worthy goal unto itself, but in my own personal life I've tried to explain to my children why it is that I want to see them take their rightful place amongst the stars. As such, I will advocate for all technology programs to advance that endeavor.

We will always have problems here on Earth and those problems will follow us wherever we go because they're human problems, rather than technology problems. In spite of the numerous and varied hardships that humanity faces and has faced in our past, that's never stopped us from exploring, advancing the state-of-the-art in technology, and striving for better outcomes for future generations by constructing the foundation for those better tomorrows using the technology available today.

These little "Starship" playthings that SpaceX is designing are not the sort of starships I had in mind and the notion that we're going to colonize another planet with them in any reasonable timeframe is, quite frankly, a little hard to believe. We could certainly start building a base with them and that's a good first step, but for any realistic colonization activities we're going to need something that makes their ITS PowerPoint rocket look like a toy. It's a potential means to something better if it pans out, but only time will tell.

kbd512 · 2020-02-20 08:36:28

Louis,

Yes, a Challenger type disaster is what I'm concerned about. I want to see them move quickly, but not so quickly that they jeopardize the success of their program. If what you say about them being so far ahead of everyone else is true, then they don't have any other competition. That said, you and I both know that isn't true. Anyway, the Raptor rocket engines were developed with money from the US Air Force and SpaceX's other rockets were developed with money from NASA, so unless he's going to rewrite our aerospace technology transfer laws he's not simply packing up his show and moving overseas. I already know that you can't name off another corporation that's done that, so it's a moot point. In reality, the only thing he'd be avoiding is some paperwork associated with independent engineering design reviews solely intended to assure the success of their program. The people working at NASA are cheering this guy on, but they also have an obligation to their own people, who will be the first people on Mars no matter what you or anyone else thinks to the contrary, to make sure the design is suitable for the stated purpose of transporting humans and cargo to Mars.

Starship is not flying anything to Mars in another 2 years. SpaceX hasn't even started working on the booster and never demonstrated on-orbit refueling. For you to speculate that the entire rocket is going to be ready to fly anything to another planet in another 2 years is going from optimism to a level of naivety not becoming someone of your intelligence, age, and experience. It took Falcon Heavy far longer to fly with far less mission complexity and lower performance requirements. Let's see the very first orbital reentry test and on-orbit refueling before we judge how ready the vehicle is. Furthermore, Starship as-presently-built is a 100t rocket if it's also reusable. If it's not reusable, then that defeats the stated purpose behind building it. 30 flawless flights of two different variants of the rocket have to occur to put 500t on Mars, no matter when development is completed. It took at least that many flights to iron out the issues with the Falcon boosters.

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-20 09:02:21

Thanks to Louis and kbd512 for your contributions to this topic.

Louis, you appear to have misunderstood what this topic is about, and I am most interested in enlisting your substantial capability to help.

The purpose of this topic is NOT to talk about a particular person's "mission" to Mars.

The purpose of this topic ** IS ** to work out a statement that would appear at the top of the main page for the forum. It would contain text that covers the collective objective (whatever that may turn out to be) AND the rules by which this little collection of human beings will try to conduct themselves in the course of the journey.

kbd512, I liked your post, because it seems (to my eye) to catch a bit of the flavor of what this topic is about.

For anyone and everyone with an interest in the future of this forum ... please go scouting for mission statements of various organizations, and post a summary in this topic, so we can collectively begin to get a sense of what might match this particular group at this point in its (by now) long history.

The mission statement needs to (somehow) encapsulate the entire range of personality types on view in the NewMars archive.

It's easy enough of me to say those words. It will be exceedingly difficult for the group to arrive at anything like a consensus one what we can all live with.

However (the ultimate point I'm trying to make) whatever we come up with will provide a good indication of what can be expected at Mars.

The chauvinism of some who participate here is on display, and that set of attitudes must be somehow blended into the attitudes of others who are more inclusive. This is pretty much the problem the American society is facing, and (I gather) is facing almost every society on Earth today.

(th)

kbd512 · 2020-02-20 20:33:22

tahanson43206,

You can rest assured that when we finally colonize another planet we will go there as a cross-section of humanity and whatever societies move their people to Mars or Venus or wherever. The notion that we're all going to think and believe the same thing smacks of religious dogma of the worst kind. That doesn't mean that common goals and ideals can't unite us in these endeavors. What I would most fervently wish for is that we could stop trying to impose our ideology on others. Throughout human history there's been an endless series of concerted efforts to impose the ideology of one group of people on another, to no good end. It really needs to stop in order for humanity to make any real progress. Neither technology nor what we choose to do with that technology should be driven by the belief that some specific ideology is somehow vastly superior to the next. There's no supporting evidence for that. None. Even the best of intentions have caused more misery and ruin than we care to remember. As such, we do need to protect ourselves from the worst effects of faulty ideology and public policy.

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-21 07:04:47

For kbd512 re #11 and topic in general

After thinking about Post #11 for an hour or so, I think there is potential to build something from it.

For all ... please look for Mission Statements of various organizations and post them here if they are not too long.

I will (with your collective indulgence) try to keep this topic very closely focused upon the (to me important) objective of setting out for new members of the forum what the forum is here to accomplish. This forum appears to have sprouted like a weed in a fertile pasture, and while that can be seen as a good thing, it is also a bit on the intimidating side for individuals more used to a civilized environment, such as a classroom or a (normal) family home.

For kbd512 ... this topic is NOT about Mars, the Earth, the Moon or any other possible locations where humans might reside. It is about THIS forum, and what it is set up to accomplish.

It could be argued that the forum was not set up to accomplish anything.

That might be the outcome of deliberation about a Mission Statement.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-02-21 17:20:38

We have somethings in the mod help topic but will see what is out there for templates and official space oriented companies.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/co … ctivities/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/ … ryday-job/

The likes of partners and sponsors are important as well as affliates
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/about/isecg
International Space Exploration Coordination Group

https://www.spacefoundation.org/who-we-are/

https://www.ndia.org/about/mission

https://www.unoosa.org/

https://www.universitylabpartners.org/w … r-startup/

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/fiv … -1.1557801

louis · 2020-02-21 19:06:44

Hmmm, not sure I entirely misunderstood!

My point was that while in the past creative discussion about different mission architectures had been relevant (and I was an enthusiastic contributor) we are entering a different era now. If my analysis is correct, then there is only one organisation that is going to land the first humans on Mars and that is Space X... and they have already effectively made their choice about mission architecture (a series of single rockets from LEO to Mars surface and back to the Earth's surface, with refuelling in LEO and on Mars, using solar power on Mars). That makes discussion of other mission architectures redundant. If the Starship is successful, it will dominate Earth-Mars transport for the foreseeable future because it has no other short term competitors.

In that context, I think any mission statement should focus on how best to take forward human colonisation of Mars using the Space X-Starship architecture as a given. Of course that doesn't preclude someone saying "I have a better architecture than Space X that can realistically be put in place within the next 20 years" - but I very much doubt anyone can do that.

It seems to be there are huge areas to discuss, where we need to work out the best approaches: space medicine (keeping humans healthy on Mars), energy and energy storage systems, the likely pattern of settlement development and transport systems on Mars, terraformation, para-terraformation, how to organise settlement, should a state be formed on Mars and if so how should it be organised etc etc.

But alternative rocketry is likely to be pretty irrelevant I feel.

tahanson43206 wrote:

Thanks to Louis and kbd512 for your contributions to this topic.
Louis, you appear to have misunderstood what this topic is about, and I am most interested in enlisting your substantial capability to help.
The purpose of this topic is NOT to talk about a particular person's "mission" to Mars.
The purpose of this topic ** IS ** to work out a statement that would appear at the top of the main page for the forum. It would contain text that covers the collective objective (whatever that may turn out to be) AND the rules by which this little collection of human beings will try to conduct themselves in the course of the journey.
kbd512, I liked your post, because it seems (to my eye) to catch a bit of the flavor of what this topic is about.
For anyone and everyone with an interest in the future of this forum ... please go scouting for mission statements of various organizations, and post a summary in this topic, so we can collectively begin to get a sense of what might match this particular group at this point in its (by now) long history.
The mission statement needs to (somehow) encapsulate the entire range of personality types on view in the NewMars archive.
It's easy enough of me to say those words. It will be exceedingly difficult for the group to arrive at anything like a consensus one what we can all live with.
However (the ultimate point I'm trying to make) whatever we come up with will provide a good indication of what can be expected at Mars.
The chauvinism of some who participate here is on display, and that set of attitudes must be somehow blended into the attitudes of others who are more inclusive. This is pretty much the problem the American society is facing, and (I gather) is facing almost every society on Earth today.
(th)

kbd512 · 2020-02-22 19:53:16

Louis,

The great thing about freedom of speech and freedom of thought is that you're completely free to continue your myopic "single-solution, no other solutions even possible" focus on what SpaceX is doing and some of the rest of us are equally free to come up with potential alternatives that would be truly sustainable now and into the foreseeable future. My thought process is that SpaceX's proposed mission architecture is the exact opposite of what would realistically be required for colonization of Mars. Launching 6 super heavy lift rockets to deliver a 100t of payload to Mars is a tacit admission that nobody presently has a good plan for colonization.

19,800t of propellant per 100t of payload delivered is an unsustainably bad energy trade, plain and simple. It's significantly worse than SLS, even though it has the benefit of being reusable if it actually works. We'll only know that after on-orbit bulk cryogen transfer is attempted for the first time. Each 100t of delivered payload is consuming the equivalent tonnage of propellant, in terms of mass, of a small aircraft carrier or amphibious ship. We don't fly too often here on Earth, even with vastly cheaper fuel bills associated with vastly lower dV / speed requirements, because it still costs too much, yet somehow we're going to send the population of a small city to another planet with exponentially higher fuel bills and life support requirements when compared to airliners. I'm guessing we won't. At best, we might end up with a mind-blowingly expensive deep space version of our Antarctic research station with perhaps 100 to 1,000 people. The idea that the average Joe will ever live there is just plain silly, seeing as how nobody who isn't sponsored by a government or corporation or is independently wealthy ever winters over in Antarctica.

SpaceX isn't going to send a 100t payload to Mars in 3 months because their rocket doesn't have the dV to do that. That means they're going out on the minimum energy free return trajectory, so a minimum of 6 months in space. At 6 months, humans do a lot better in artificial gravity than they do in microgravity. Unfortunately, Starship isn't capable of providing that. It's not a big deal for astronauts, but again, the average Joe will never fair well in that kind of environment and more proof that a colony of ordinary people is a pipe dream using chemical rockets, as if more was actually required. We're also not going to train a million astronauts when training is several million dollars per astronaut, unless we discover several trillion more dollars we're not doing anything with, like paying fuel bills or maintaining a fleet of a thousand Starships.

After Starship gets there, it basically has to land somewhere that's flat as a pancake and as hard as concrete. Anyone who's simply carried something in their arms can look up at that thing's payload bay and know that it's the worst possible design for rough field stability. Unless you can guarantee a landing on a concrete pad, it remains an unsolved problem. You'll suddenly "discover" this the first time they try to land Starship on sand. Many places on Mars the ground is basically fine sand 10+ feet deep, so no matter where it lands it may not be all that stable. It's solvable, as GW pointed out, but their design doesn't illustrate any such thinking in its design. I think a few of their engineers need to take a ride on a C-130 that's landing on beach for the point to be driven home.

So, rather than pointing out all the painfully obvious problems, at least to people who are engineers, what are my proposed solutions?

1. The most intractable problem to space colonization is not having somewhere to go or even knowing how to design a ship to go there- because we did that before CAD and CFD ever existed, it's figuring out how to obtain a reasonable payload fraction for a given propellant consumption. So, how do we do that?

A. We use an electromagnetic launch system, not to achieve orbital velocity before we leave the track, but merely to eliminate the requirement for that gargantuan booster by replacing the dV increment provided by the booster with substantially more efficient electromagnetic acceleration. After that booster disappears, roughly 2/3rds of propellant mass, vehicle mass, and associated development / maintenance costs are offloaded to a ground-based system that doesn't have any real mass or power constraints.

Even if we just stick with conventional LOX/LH2 or LOX/LCH4 or LOX/RP-1 propellant from there, we've arrived at a fuel burn not significantly worse than a passenger airliner flying half way across the world. Lo and behold, at least a billion passengers can afford air travel each year because the cost associated with that kind of fuel burn is entirely within the realm of economic feasibility for at least 1/7th of the world's population, a number growing by the day as we use more efficient energy technology to beat the living crap out of systemic poverty associated with energy-poor pre-industrialized societies. Since most of us living in industrialized societies can afford that once per year, that considerably expands the pool of economically qualified space colonization applicants. Recall that we do have to actually procure our Mars colonists and there may not be an infinite supply of wealthy and highly educated applicants who want to sell everything they own to move to Mars.

B. Assuming that in the next couple of decades or so that we really want to "go for the gold" when it comes to ultimate fuel efficiency, then we can also employ high-powered microwave transmitters to act upon heat exchangers to provide nuclear thermal rocket specific impulse levels for the final push to orbital velocity. At this point, the fuel burn associated with attaining orbital velocity is no worse than running current bleeding edge technology high-bypass turbofan engines for several hours. As a bonus, no onboard explosive mixture of oxidizer and fuel is required. The fuel is pure H2.

After we get there at the cost of an international flight ticket, we're half-way to anywhere else we want to go.

2. Once we're in orbit, we no longer have to use horribly inefficient chemical rockets to go other places. High-powered electric propulsion is the way to go. Since there's full Sun 24/7/365, if we have artificial gravity and electromagnetic shielding, there's really no great rush to land somewhere else. A leisurely orbital transfer followed by another leisurely orbital transfer at the destination planet is far preferable to a screaming interplanetary reentry with the thinnest of margins between a successful landing and becoming a man-made impact crater.

3. We design purpose-built interplanetary transports and purpose-built landers. Starship does look like the beginning of a decent reusable purpose-built lander, but it can either be good at landing on things in rough terrain or it can be a good upper stage for an orbital class super heavy lift rocket, but not both. It certainly won't be everything else that Elon Musk says it will be.

A. A purpose-built interplanetary transport needs artificial gravity, electromagnetic space radiation shielding, space debris shielding, and electric propulsion. It need not ever reenter a planetary atmosphere and it's much better from a design optimization standpoint if it doesn't.

B. A purpose-built lander needs to be designed with a low-CG, low-BC, and enough mass to be truly reusable. It needs to cope with significant periods of disuse, have reliable engines and propellant handling systems with minimal complexity, and be easy to maintain in the field. This is pretty much the exact opposite of an optimal upper stage designed for a rocket.

C. It must be understood that cost ultimately wins when it comes to the shipping business, which at least appears to be the business that we really want to be engaged in. Our routes are a little longer than your average milk run, but the basic concept remains the same. An interplanetary cargo transport system that costs many thousands of dollars per pound is not a feasible proposition for any other long-term user apart from the government of a very wealthy nation. That's the current status quo, so nothing much will change by introducing another heavy lift rocket that has to refuel half a dozen times to go anywhere else. The bulk of the cost therefore appears to be associated with merely achieving orbital velocity. That's the "real engineering" problem that needs to be solved. Trying to create a "single solution" to every problem associated with space activities from satellite launch to transport to reentry is precisely the same sort of issue that made the Space Shuttle unaffordable to operate. The design requirements for all of those activities is so wildly different that there can't and won't be any practical / economically feasible solution for all of them rolled into a single design.

As far as relevancy is concerned, I have a feeling that the first company that builds an orbital class transport that can transport a ton of whatever at present air freight rates is likely to make SpaceX's entire line of rockets irrelevant. Nobody will pay more money to ship something to orbit when they can simply re-schedule their cargo for the next outbound flight. A vertical launch rocket is unlikely to ever achieve that kind of launch rate and nothing of the sort has been demonstrated to date by SpaceX or anyone else because they persist with this outmoded "main event" kind of space launch service that requires months of careful planning versus two pilots and an air traffic controller. All passenger airline services can and often do change their flight plans by the hour without so much as a hiccup in the overall air transport operation. Eliminating the booster and simply flying off of a runway or electromagnetic launch track (a land-based catapult system) makes it possible to depart every couple of minutes.

So, no, nothing I've seen thus far makes SpaceX's plan look any more realistic than any other plan. They're building another heavy lift rocket, which is kinda funny since they already have one. All of the technologies they say they need to get working for their Mars colonization plan to work, or at least the transportation phases of it, should've been tested using their smaller and less expensive rocket that, at least in theory, requires no additional development just to fly and test the concepts required to make Starship work. If they couldn't make reusability work as well as they need it to with a smaller and cheaper rocket, then I fail to see how the economics will improve when they "super size it".

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-22 20:29:52

For Louis and kbd512

Actually, I'm delighted to have inspired such posts as the two of you have contributed.

However, it appears I need to help everyone by showing an example of what I'm hoping we can agree upon.

We can start with the Mars Society itself, which is (after all) the organization that provides funds for this site, and indirectly provides the basis for whatever credibility the site may have or hope to have.

From the About page of the main site:

In order to accomplish this, the organization actively seeks to:
1. Organize public outreach with the aim of fostering a deep interest in Mars,
2. Promote broad international support for government-funded Mars research and exploration, and
3. Advocate the establishment of commercial space ventures that will help achieve Mars exploration and settlement.
Society activities include Mars analog simulations in the Utah desert and the Canadian Arctic, public outreach and educational programs such as the MarsVR virtual reality simulations, the annual University Rover Challenge, political advocacy efforts, privately-funded research, chapter meetings and activities in the U.S. and around the world, and the annual International Mars Society Convention.

The NewMars forum exists within the scope of those larger "missions".

However, (with all due respect to Dr. Zubrin), the FORUM encourages individual contributions by individual humans, pretty much without limitation of point of origin. There ARE some limitations on behavior within the forum, but those are remarkably generous, everything considered.

I'm hoping a mission statement for the forum might have a bit of a personal development flavor. In the past (or so it seems to me) there have been a few instances of an individual trying to show off their intellect or way with words or education or whatever moves them at the time, but in the main, what I have seen for the most part are sincere attempts by everyone to try to contribute to a better understanding of the universe we live in as it reflects on the overall theme of achieve multi-planetary capability for the species.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-02-22 20:31:01)

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-22 20:43:29

Here is one of what appear to be several versions of the US Army mission statement.

For an organization as old as this one, it is understandable that the wording of the mission statement will evolve albeit ** slowly ** as times change.

https://www.goarmy.com/
As a branch of the armed forces, the mission of the U.S. Army is "to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders".

The NewMars forum could start out in a similar way ... As a branch/service/? of the Mars Society, the mission of the NewMars forum is ...

I'd like to see personal development of those who contribute to the forum, and more importantly, of those who come into contact with the forum, in ways that have some relationship to human progress toward becoming a multi-planet species.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-02-22 20:45:18

The older forum software would have allowed for single post spliut and merge but its no longer possible.

Have copied them to the new zubrin elon musk topic in hopes they will continue over there.

edit
There is no reason to create an account if all that is desired is to lurk or to be disruptive as all we seek is the science of the mind to talk about space and all things there in.

As a result of continued spamming attacks and large quantities of dormant accounts, it is the decision of the board to begin locking these accounts if a follow post is not made within 30 days. If you want your account, sorry reregister again and be sure to post so that you are not banned again.

SpaceNut · 2020-02-22 21:15:25

Some thoughts from postings in other places for a preamble for the forum message for wanting to post.

This forum benefits when individuals who are interested in the overall theme, or specific topics, are inspired to make a contribution that blends into the flow. We are also getting some very good topics going for the categories on the new member location as well to sort of drop in to attract people here as well to join in with discusion here as well. At present, it seems to me that the forum is dependent upon random chance to bring in new members. Volunteering is the spirit that makes many things work, so getting that word out might be used to see a gain of membership for Newmars. I bring this up because the NewMars forum can advance toward goals created by its members, if there are additional high quality volunteers willing to pitch in to help.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For those who go to the trouble of registering to participate in this forum, we are looking for additional persons with expertise in a variety of fields, and a willingness to share insights with forum readers.
We already have on hand representatives from:
engineering
chemistry
physics
finance
biology
Since all these fields have numerous subdivisions, we can certainly provide a receptive audience for new contributors

tahanson43206 wrote:

The subject of education of children on Mars has come up tangentially in topics here, and (I suspect) digital technology will play a very significant role in education of both children and adults on Mars. This person might have been able to contribute useful insight into design of digital education systems for locations away from Earth, where adult teachers must devote most of their time to responsibilities other than teaching.

tahanson43206 · 2020-02-23 08:12:39

For SpaceNut re #19

Thanks for your thoughtful opening paragraph!

It would be (or could be) helpful to learn how recent new members came into awareness of NewMars. I can offer evidence that recruiting is a possible approach, because Terraformer recruited me from the Knowledge forum run by Dr. Lewis Dartnell. I appreciated Terraformer's invitation to take a look at NewMars, because Dr. Dartnell's forum is primarily organized around anticipating and preparing for the end of civilization. That is most certainly a worthy concern, but it is ultimately depressing. NewMars has a generally upbeat and forward looking tone, which is a better match for my interests.

We (you and others including Terraformer who is already successful) can undertake local recruiting.

In fact I've been doing exactly that, and my interest in the mission statement for the group is the disorganized appearance that a highly creative group such as this one can present to the world.

If I were able to persuade a highly educated (ie, PhD level) person to take a look at this group, he (or she) would immediately be confronted by the unfiltered nature of the membership.

GW Johnson in particular, and elderflower on occasion, provide examples of the high level thinking that is needed for any Mars settlement activity to succeed.

I am hoping Calliban will sustain his interest in a cocoon wrapping system for Apophis, because that is the project I've been offering for evaluation.

At this point, as I've been following (and occasionally contributing to) the discussion, I see absolutely no show stopper issues that would prevent initiation of a project to land (that's not the right word) ? park ? merge ? a set of vehicles on/around Apophis to begin the wrapping process, with the long term objective of applying sufficient chemical propulsion to the object to move it to a suitable location for harvesting.

I'd like to see the kind of ideas you've offered in Post #19 developed further, and invite other members who may have insights I'm missing to add suggestions.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-02-23 10:44:13

http://newmars.com/forums/misc.php?action=rules

Forum rules
By accessing “newmars.com” (hereinafter “we”, “us”, “our”, “newmars.com”, “newmars.com/forums”), you agree to be legally bound by the following terms. If you do not agree to be legally bound by all of the following terms then please do not access and/or use “newmars.com”. We may change these at any time and we’ll do our utmost in informing you, though it would be prudent to review this regularly yourself as your continued usage of “newmars.com” after changes mean you agree to be legally bound by these terms as they are updated and/or amended. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where “newmars.com” is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that “newmars.com” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered to being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent, “newmars.com” shall not be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5134
Discusion of rules

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8500
How did you get interested in Mars & its colonisation/terraformation?

I was reminded by scanning topics that some of the web traffic is from mobile devices through cellular and wifi enabled phones or tablets not just computers these days and not just from an ISP from home.

The ability to see more written content on the home page changing might get more attention if the mission statement or charter has visible from there as well.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7843
Write/Edit for New Mars Journal (Newmars.com)

We had one newly register actually take the time to post but seems to have disappeared or is lurking
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7824
Introducing myself The Contralmirante

At one time we had a members driven wiki with a link at the top of the page
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=3517
New Mars Wiki now online
http://marspedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Its now got its own team from Jburk of mars society IT that are merging it and others together to bring all content under one roof.

Here is another page of importance that seems to be invisible until you happen on it and that is Mars Socieites on page for News & anouncements
http://www.marssociety.org/home/news/?p … -can-do-it

SpaceNut · 2020-03-12 19:09:04

Some of this

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut re Recruiting
The article at the link below is written for commercial organizations, but the ideas seem applicable to recruiting talent for projects for this forum:
https://store.hp.com/us/en/tech-takes/4 … top-talent
I don't think it is necessary to try for "top" talent, in the case of the forum. I think that the ability to collaborate with others is more important as a characteristic to look for in volunteers. Volunteers can develop their skills by helping with the kinds of challenging exercises that are in discussion here.
(th)

should be part of a mission statement in the level of what we want to archive via open discusion.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2020-02-19 08:37:02

Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#2 2020-02-19 17:25:55

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#3 2020-02-19 18:21:37

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#4 2020-02-19 19:15:41

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#5 2020-02-19 21:29:16

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#6 2020-02-19 21:41:48

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#7 2020-02-20 05:33:40

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#8 2020-02-20 08:15:47

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#9 2020-02-20 08:36:28

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#10 2020-02-20 09:02:21

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#11 2020-02-20 20:33:22

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#12 2020-02-21 07:04:47

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#13 2020-02-21 17:20:38

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#14 2020-02-21 19:06:44

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#15 2020-02-22 19:53:16

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#16 2020-02-22 20:29:52

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#17 2020-02-22 20:43:29

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#18 2020-02-22 20:45:18

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#19 2020-02-22 21:15:25

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#20 2020-02-23 08:12:39

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#21 2020-02-23 10:44:13

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

#22 2020-03-12 19:09:04

Re: Mars Society or NewMars mission or charter statement

Board footer