A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

Scott G. Beach · 2003-12-28 18:05:59

In an article titled "Lost Mars," Stuart Atkinson wrote, "Unless something changes, soon, we are not going to live to see people walk on Mars. We are going to lose Mars." He asserts that what we "need, desperately [is] A Reason to Go" to Mars. He suggests that we adopt the search for extraterrestrial life as THE reason to go to Mars. I disagree.

Mr. Atkinson wrote that Mars "is not a realistic destination for them [ordinary people], or for their kids." I believe that this is THE problem. We could solve this problem by adopting a Mars exploration and settlement strategy that makes Mars a realistic destination for ordinary people. We can do that by initiating an exploration and settlement program that includes ordinary people and their children.

Imagine that ordinary people from all over this world are coming together in one place to work out the details of how humans can travel to and live on Mars. Imagine that those people are building the spacecraft that will take explorers and settlers to Mars. That kind of vision can unite people all around this planet to support the exploration and settlement of Mars. That is the kind of vision that my Mars exploration and settlement proposal is based on. See http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743/euthenia.htm

Stu · 2003-12-29 09:11:58

Scott,

I love your optimism, but I honestly think that the only way we are going to get people - ANY people - on Mars in the next 50 years is to get public support behind a mission with a very finite goal - to find life on Mars.

As much I personally love the idea of making the exploration of Mars and travel to Mars possible for "the man (or woman or child) in the street", and mass migration to Mars too, I just can't see it happening. The enormous cost, huge timescales, the short-term-thinking political world orders, the medical problems, the technological hurdles and the sheer risk and danger all make it impossible - for the forseeable future, at least - to send more than a handful of people there and, ideally, bring them back in one piece.

Until we can build HUGE ships, with room for hundreds of "normal" people, ships which have enough room to stop everyone either going space-mad and killing each other out of boredom, and can travel regularly to and from Mars (did anyone say "Cycleships"?) like buses or cruise liners then the only groups of people going to Mars will be groups of 3 or 4 astronauts, men and women trained to a) live in cramped spaces and harsh environments, b) multi-task several jobs en-route, c) cope with being away from home for up to three years, c) be entirely self-sufficient in a closed, recycling life support system and d) accept that they set-off knowing they might not make it back. "Family ships" would cost too much money, would take too much power and too many resources, and would be an enormous risk - losing a Family Ship with 30 people in would be a far worse blow to a space program than "just" losing 3 or 4. I don't think a program could ever recover from that.

And Mars is no place for the Ingalls family anyway. Their Little House on the Martian Prairie would be asasaulted by dust storms, radiation, marrow-chilling cold... ;-)

Wonderful goal, I totally agree, but I think that we have to aim at getting SOMEONE on Mars before 2030, **anyone**, before we start planning a Walnut Grove in the middle of Hellas.

Stu

Bill White · 2003-12-29 11:33:33

Using "tweaked" MarsDirect architecture, why couldn't you place a couple of dozen permanent bootstrappers on Mars for less than the cost of the initial three missions? MarsDirect cost estimates run $40 - $ 60 billion USD for 2 or 3 initial missions, right? How much is each additional mission? It surely is NOT 1/3 of the initial cost as much of that is upfront R&D costs.

Take CELSS research, for example. Much money will be needed for the research to perfect a genuine closed loop environment. Yet, once the design work is done, building large numbers of CELSS modules will be fairly inexpensive per additional copy.

The first Earth to Mars TransHab inflatable will be very expensive. How much would the 9th copy cost? Especially after the R&D has already been fully paid by NASA?

= = =

A team of six bootstrappers would need:

An Energia (bought in quantity from the Russians) launched from Kouru for maximum mass to LEO. Add strap-ons for extra launch mass if needed. Use a TransHab style inflatable habitat and the spent TMI stage to tether to and spin at 2 rpm at a distance of 86 meters. Add aeroshell and landing gear bought "off the shelf" and already tested on Mars One & Two & Three. Tweaked, perhaps, but not re-designed.

How could all of the above cost more than $1 or $2 billion USD? After all the bootstrappers are merely buying proven technology off the shelf. Technology proven by NASA and/or ESA during the initial landings.

Direct throw some nuclear reactors and supplies at $1 billion USD per shot (very round numbers) and the bootstrappers land with a few of David Poston's new reactors and maybe a robot bulldozer and hydroponic supplies waiting for them.

$2 billion for six bootstrappers plus $1 billion for a supply shot.

As a follow on to MarsDirect, $36 billion could deposit 72 people on Mars using 24 Energia launches, 12 for people and 12 for supplies. One way to stay. Then live off the land, using techniques pioneered by the NASA and/or ESA sponsored MarsOne, Two and Three. This assumes we find sufficient perma-frost to readily mine for water.

As for pricing, don't you think RSC Energia would offer a discount per launch =IF= someone committed to buy 24 as a guaranteed deal?

= = =

Risky? Sure.

But look at the upside. If someone went and did this, and later the rest of humanity built those giant cyclers or fast nuclear ships were built, these initial bootstrappers would have a heck of a claim to a dominating say in the future political direction of an entire planet. Spend $30 to $50 billion as an immediate follow on to MarsDirect and have a chance to own huge chunks of an entire planet.

Now, I might prefer that Mars be opened by a unified world government (and I might not) however I am reluctant to hold my breath for the emergence of a unified world government any time soon. The United Nations hasn't had the best of years, this year.

The US and the EU are increasingly at odds as well.

The reality remains that a committed group of risk takers could put a few dozen permanent settlers on Mars for about the same cost as would be needed for the initial series of missions. I am not necessarily saying someone should do this, merely that they could.

And possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Stu · 2003-12-29 12:10:53

But look at the upside. If someone went and did this, and later the rest of humanity built those giant cyclers or fast nuclear ships were built, these initial bootstrappers would have a heck of a claim to a dominating say in the future political direction of an entire planet. Spend $30 to $50 billion as an immediate follow on to MarsDirect and have a chance to own huge chunks of an entire planet.

...and then, one day, some of the second or third generation serfs get so fed up with paying their taxes to their Martian Atreides or Harkonnens masters and dump all their tea out of an airlock...

Revolution anyone? ;-)

Stu

Bill White · 2003-12-29 12:33:34

But look at the upside. If someone went and did this, and later the rest of humanity built those giant cyclers or fast nuclear ships were built, these initial bootstrappers would have a heck of a claim to a dominating say in the future political direction of an entire planet. Spend $30 to $50 billion as an immediate follow on to MarsDirect and have a chance to own huge chunks of an entire planet.
...and then, one day, some of the second or third generation serfs get so fed up with paying their taxes to their Martian Atreides or Harkonnens masters and dump all their tea out of an airlock...
Revolution anyone? ;-)
Stu

Touche!

However, a civilian Mars settlement need not be designed to generate a profit (or taxes) in the traditional sense. Indeed that would be a fool's errand to even attempt. The Spanish tried that in the old NewWorld and it failed miserably.

We Yanks stopped paying taxes to the British crown in the 1770s yet in the 20th century we twice supported the British (and French) against German aggression. Why? We are an English speaking nation. Why? Because the English settled here first. Whatever the Brits spent in the 17th and 18th centuries on their ungrateful Yankee colonies was fully repaid by LendLease in WW2.

Mars will be politically independent. Its just too far away to exert effective political control over. But if the settlers speak English and are given economic and political freedom from the beginning, then in their hearts both they and their descendants will be loyal to whoever sent them there.

Found a settlement - - not to collect taxes or earn a profit - - but to extend the reach of one's culture or civilization.

Memes can be selfish as well as genes.

Stu · 2003-12-29 12:44:57

However, a civilian Mars settlement need not be designed to generate a profit (or taxes) in the traditional sense. Indeed that would be a fool's errand to even attempt.
Mars will be politically independent. Its just too far away to exert effective political control over. But if the settlers speak English and are given economic and political freedom from the beginning, then in their hearts both they and their descendants will be loyal to whoever sent them there.

The taxes needn't necessarily be direct taxes, just money paid to the mission's and settlement's "backers". There's no such thing as a free launch. People will probably have to work their passage if they go on a privately-funded mission, and when they arrive at Mars they'll be expected to work for their air, at least for a while.

So, independance is a lofty ideal, and worth fighting for, but when you're a settlement newbie and you run out of toilet paper, and a guy says "I have some, but it will cost you..." well, I think you're going to re-assess your stubbornness ;-)

Stu

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-29 21:23:53

I don't see why your scheme wouldn't work, Bill. And I think people would be surprised by the number of volunteers you'd get for the (one-way) trip.

Whichever way you look at it, it's a far more comprehensive and detailed plan for the human settlement of Mars than anything we have at the moment!

Scott G. Beach · 2003-12-29 21:40:45

Stuart:

A major problem with the goal of finding past or present life on Mars is that this goal excludes ordinary people from participation. In contrast, my proposal can include ordinary people all around the world. For example, when you give presentations to classes of school children, you could invite them to participate in the creation of a prototypical Martian civilization. You could invite them to imagine that they live in The City of Euthenia and you could suggest that they apply their artistic and writing skills to the task of helping to create the art and folklore of that city. You could invite them to plant the seed of a new civilization.

In another section of this forum, I have posted links to "Martian Stars" that I recently drew. Those stars are derived from templates that contain the Golden Ratio (Phi). An endless number of such designs is possible. And, with the assistance of Clark (of this forum) I designed a flag for The City of Euthenia. That flag is full of Phi relationships.

I have also posted a Martian Myth that provides a cosmogony and a destiny for Euthenia. That myth could be the foundation for a dramatic presentation.

As the "Emperor of Mars," I have ordained a means of saluting the flag of the Provisional Government of Mars. The features of that flag are specified in a "Constitution of the Provisional Government of Mars," which I wrote.

I have had a lot of FUN designing these parts and pieces of a new civilization. I believe that school children all over this planet could be invited to share in that fun. I also believe that inviting ordinary people, especially children, to apply their artistic and literary talents to the task of designing a new civilization is the best strategy for generating a sustained effort to explore and settle Mars.

The search for native life on Mars is an important goal but I cannot participate in that search and neither can most people. The Mars Movement needs a strategy that is more inclusive than the search for past or present Martian life. The Euthenia Project is a good strategy for generating a sustained effort to explore and settle Mars because that project can include ordinary people all around this planet. And, most importantly, The Euthenia Project can be lots of FUN. In this regard, I speak from personal experience.

Rxke · 2003-12-30 03:14:25

Scott...

Greeting of the flag... With all due respect, but you do realise, i hope, that this greeting stuff is something typical American? I don't see an European, Australian, Hindu... buying into this.

Don't want to troll here, i'm serious. Just pointing out that what some people see as totally normal, others see as totally weird. In my country, Belgium, if they'd 'force' us to greet the flag, there'd be a revolution in no time. Not because we hate our country, no... We're just not used to such a thing.

Stu · 2003-12-30 08:47:48

Stuart:
A major problem with the goal of finding past or present life on Mars is that this goal excludes ordinary people from participation. In contrast, my proposal can include ordinary people all around the world. For example, when you give presentations to classes of school children, you could invite them to participate in the creation of a prototypical Martian civilization. You could invite them to imagine that they live in The City of Euthenia and you could suggest that they apply their artistic and writing skills to the task of helping to create the art and folklore of that city. You could invite them to plant the seed of a new civilization.

Hi Scott,

(It's "Stu", please! ;-) )

I admire all the hard work and thought you've put into your ideas, I really do, but my take on this is based on personal experience and hard fact. I've been giving talks in schools for almost 20 years now, and I worked out the other day that during 2004 I talked to just under 2000 people all over the UK, mostly about Mars, so I can honestly tell you that the people - young or old - I meet just don't believe that we're anywhere near sending "normal" people into space never mind to Mars, and if I stood up in front of a group and told them otherwise they simply wouldn't believe me and think I was a crank.

My contribution to bringing forward the date of manned exploration of Mars takes the form of educating kids about the nature of Mars, trying to make them see it as a real world, with real landscapes, history and its own identity. The way I see it is this - if I can get them to go "wow!" at pictures of Olympus Mons and Marineris, and make them imagine they're walking on that rusty landscape, then they'll be more likely to grow up thinking of Mars as a real place, and as a place that's worth finding out more about, and either work to become astronauts themselves, or will, as adults, pressure politicians to send people to Mars. I simply can't, and won't, walk into a class of innocents and tell those wide-eyed kids that when they grow up they could all be living on Mars like the kids in Little House because they won't, it's just not going to happen, and that's not me being defeatist it's me being realistic.

If one of the MERs sends back pictures of a martian MacDonalds with a full menu, tentacled-aliens working behind the counter and ample car parking out front even *that* wouldn't kick-start a mass-migration plan ;-)

But everyone contributes in their own way, so more power to you my friend! :-)

Stu

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-30 10:08:58

I must say, despite our differences on other subjects, Bill is making a lot of sense here. There are no real practical reasons why we can't start colonization immediately.

Personally, I don't particulalrly care who starts it because once there is a permanent settlement the example will be there for others to follow and they will. I'd prefer that the US government get it going, but if Halliburton or the Red Chinese do it first it's still a day for celebration.

On another note, how does one define "normal" people? If you mean people who aren't NASA types or career military officers, this is easy and already being done to a degree. If you mean "man off the street", random cross-section of humanity, I don't see it happening. Never one for political correctness I'll just say it: the majority of people are too lazy, ignorant or just plain stupid to be capable of doing it. An individual ceases to be "normal" when they demonstrate a willingness to live on Mars and the mental capacity and flexibility to do so.

Do we really want that kid at the McDonald's drive-thru that can't seem to grasp the idea of "no mustard" piloting spacecraft or maintaining life support systems? On the other hand do we really need an aerospace engineer to work on the plumbing? Do we want lawyers making convoluted policy for groups of less than 500 people? Colonizing Mars doesn't require that everyone have a PhD, but it excludes a large percentage of the population who have neither the desire nor the capacity to do it.

clark · 2003-12-30 10:29:52

All wise plans end with its generation.

Here is the nut to crack, at least as I see it:

Send people to Mars. Okay. Send only the people who can do something there. Something productive. That's part of the plan, right? We have control over this. We can shape this. We can make worst case scenerio's and best case scenerio's. We can evaluate each person that goes to Mars, to make sure they are a right fit.

Then they all have children.

By and large, these children will adjust. But not all of them will. Not all of them will want to be there. And most of them will be more trapped than you or I still on Earth (less personal choice to choose their own life)

Unhappy people in an enclosed space... People on Mars who don't want to be there. KSR looked at this issue with ONE character (the french psychiatrist), and then promptly forgot all about it. Most who think about space don't stop long enough to think about those who might not want to be there. Afterall, let them stay on Earth, right? Well, that all changes when people are no longer just on Earth. When people are no longer born just on Earth. When people might not be able to go back to Earth.

What then?

I think Scott is on the right track to some degree- a lot of this stuff is about establishing a social and cultural substance that can absorb would be malcontents. To give Mars life.

But the problem will still remain, what do you do with that 'broad cross section of humanity' when they are born on Mars?

Some one give me the answers.

Bill White · 2003-12-30 10:43:46

I must say, despite our differences on other subjects, Bill is making a lot of sense here. There are no real practical reasons why we can't start colonization immediately.

Thanks, Cobra. We do often analyze things in very similair fashion. And if everyone ALWAYS agreed the world would be a damn boring place.

Personally, I don't particulalrly care who starts it because once there is a permanent settlement the example will be there for others to follow and they will. I'd prefer that the US government get it going, but if Halliburton or the Red Chinese do it first it's still a day for celebration.
On another note, how does one define "normal" people? If you mean people who aren't NASA types or career military officers, this is easy and already being done to a degree. If you mean "man off the street", random cross-section of humanity, I don't see it happening. Never one for political correctness I'll just say it: the majority of people are too lazy, ignorant or just plain stupid to be capable of doing it. An individual ceases to be "normal" when they demonstrate a willingness to live on Mars and the mental capacity and flexibility to do so.

What we need to do is help ordinary Joe and Jane identify - - vicariously - - with those who will go to settle Mars.

One of my many unfulfilled personal dreams is to slam-dunk a basketball. That ain't never going to happen (except maybe with an 8 foot basket) but if I drink Gatorade I too can "be like Mike" - - Michael Jordan. Being a Chicagoan I have witnessed the selling of MJ firsthand, and it was brilliantly done by some really smart people.

Ordinary people won't go to Mars. Ever. But ordinary people can identify, vicariously, with those that do go if we publicize the settlers in the right way.

Do we really want that kid at the McDonald's drive-thru that can't seem to grasp the idea of "no mustard" piloting spacecraft or maintaining life support systems? On the other hand do we really need an aerospace engineer to work on the plumbing? Do we want lawyers making convoluted policy for groups of less than 500 people? Colonizing Mars doesn't require that everyone have a PhD, but it excludes a large percentage of the population who have neither the desire nor the capacity to do it.

Exactly! But why rub their (our) noses in that fact.

Nike and Gatorade doesn't say, "Look here you out-a-shape white boy, you ain't never going above the rim like Mike." No, they create the illusion I can be like Mike.

A focus on "science" as the reason for Mars won't sell the idea to Plain Jane and Mopey Joe since all that will do is remind them of getting "Cs" of "Ds" in science class and how much they hated the smarty-pants propeller heads heading off to MIT or CalTech (or Oxford).

Sell Mars another way and then slip the science in when the average folk ain't looking.

Sneaky, huh?

Bill White · 2003-12-30 10:49:17

All wise plans end with its generation.
Here is the nut to crack, at least as I see it:
Send people to Mars. Okay. Send only the people who can do something there. Something productive. That's part of the plan, right? We have control over this. We can shape this. We can make worst case scenerio's and best case scenerio's. We can evaluate each person that goes to Mars, to make sure they are a right fit.
Then they all have children.
By and large, these children will adjust. But not all of them will. Not all of them will want to be there. And most of them will be more trapped than you or I still on Earth (less personal choice to choose their own life)
Unhappy people in an enclosed space... People on Mars who don't want to be there. KSR looked at this issue with ONE character (the french psychiatrist), and then promptly forgot all about it. Most who think about space don't stop long enough to think about those who might not want to be there. Afterall, let them stay on Earth, right? Well, that all changes when people are no longer just on Earth. When people are no longer born just on Earth. When people might not be able to go back to Earth.
What then?
I think Scott is on the right track to some degree- a lot of this stuff is about establishing a social and cultural substance that can absorb would be malcontents. To give Mars life.
But the problem will still remain, what do you do with that 'broad cross section of humanity' when they are born on Mars?
Some one give me the answers.

Two answers -

Its the same here. How do we deal with malcontents? Same problem. People on Mars will still be people.

= = =

Scott = IS = asking the right questions. IMHO, however, his answers have too much Plato (The Laws) and not enough Jefferson and Lincoln and Shakespeare.

= = =

Sorry, I missed this first time through.

All wise plans end with its generation.

The education of our children is the only politics that ever really matters. Heck, I learned that way back in college.

clark · 2003-12-30 10:52:16

Scott = IS = asking the right questions. IMHO, however, his answers have too much Plato (The Laws) and not enough Jefferson and Lincoln and Shakespeare.

What was that about selfish memes?

Its the same here. How do we deal with malcontents? Same problem. People on Mars will still be people.

Ah, the White Room. Thanks Bill.

Bill White · 2003-12-30 10:55:28

Scott = IS = asking the right questions. IMHO, however, his answers have too much Plato (The Laws) and not enough Jefferson and Lincoln and Shakespeare.
What was that about selfish memes?
Its the same here. How do we deal with malcontents? Same problem. People on Mars will still be people.
Ah, the White Room. Thanks Bill.

Freedom requires that we question our pre-suppositions. Choose your memes as best you can.

Unless you are A.J. Armitage who says humans can never question their pre-suppositions.

clark · 2003-12-30 11:06:49

Touche.

People will be people... but what kind of people will they be on Mars?

I've been labled something of the tyrant, the despot, advocate of all that is unholy and untrue. Whatever.

But if people are going to be people, on Mars, in enclosed spaces, with very few options to go anywhere else other than there (or another hab just like that one), it dosen't seem very stable (at least given western expectations related to liberty and privacy). I'm talking about a settlement folks, not some base or military outpost.

A case in point- I recently visited the happiest place on Earth (or so I am told, over and over and over again), Disneyland.

I had the unfortunate opportunity to visit on the busiest weekend of the year. They get something like 15,000-20,000 people a day most of the year. Busy days, 60,000 to 85,000.

All those people in a space no larger than 86 acres. Now, I visited for ONE day. I wouldn't want to imagine more than one day there at those numbers. But this is precisely what we are all taking about when we start talking about 'settlement' of Mars. It will always be easier to add to an exsisting base, as opposed to building an entirely new one. You're going to end up with high population density within these bases.

What options are there to alleviate problems like this?

Bill White · 2003-12-30 11:15:35

How the settlers actually live and how a settler's life is portrayed on TV will be vastly different. Just because Mars won't be anything like "Little Dome on the Regolith" doesn't mean that is not a great angle for Terran public relations.

Settlers will need immense personal motivation and the children will grow up knowing nothing different. I agree with you, clark, clinical depression will be a major obstacle for any permanent settlers.

Solutions? No commercial television for Marsian kids. That is step #1.

clark · 2003-12-30 11:28:04

Solutions? No commercial television for Marsian kids. That is step #1.

Ignorance is bliss?

Yes Timmy, we have all this bandwidth, but you can't watch anything from Earth.

Books? Don't dream of sea and salt, nor the call of seagulls lost in morning dew. It's just a dream and will always be.

Pen pals back on Earth? Tera from Terra writes: What's the wind feel like on Mars, Marti from Mars?

Marti, perplexed, wondering what any kind of wind feels like.

Pictures of Earth? Of wild wilderness uncontained in every direction. Or pictures of Martian gardens, contained, and ordered.

What is the night without the inconstant moon? Dark and black are the forever directions of night on Mars. No werewolves here.

Sorry for the ramble... just wondering out loud.

Scott G. Beach · 2003-12-30 19:53:26

Stuart:

I have strong reservations about taking the "art" out of your name because art is what separates us from the chimps and gorillas. However, if you prefer...

Stu:

You wrote, "I simply can't, and won't, walk into a class of innocents and tell those wide-eyed kids that when they grow up they could all be living on Mars like the kids in Little House because they won't, it's just not going to happen, and that's not me being defeatist it's me being realistic." I completely agree with you on this but I think that you have misunderstood what I am proposing. I am proposing that we build a prototype Martian settlement on Earth. That settlement could and should be filled with ordinary people rather than with an elite group of people who have "the right stuff." A nation might conduct a lottery to raise money for and to select the people who will live in its "national neighborhood" in The City of Euthenia. If Britain conducted that kind of a lottery, would you buy a ticket or two?

It might take us 100 terrestrial years to construct a self-sufficient sociocultural system that can maintain and replicate itself on Mars. That would be fine with me -- Mars will still be there in 2104.

The Mars Movement needs an aesthetic tradition and a museum of protoMartian folk arts. I have proposed that prototypical Martians adopt an aesthetic tradition based on Phi, "the world's most astonishing number." Perhaps I should put a "Museum of ProtoMartian Arts" into my plan for The City of Euthenia. If I did, would you encourage school children to create Phi-based art and to contribute images of it to a virtual museum?

Stu · 2003-12-31 04:26:06

I am proposing that we build a prototype Martian settlement on Earth. That settlement could and should be filled with ordinary people rather than with an elite group of people who have "the right stuff." A nation might conduct a lottery to raise money for and to select the people who will live in its "national neighborhood" in The City of Euthenia. If Britain conducted that kind of a lottery, would you buy a ticket or two?
The Mars Movement needs an aesthetic tradition and a museum of protoMartian folk arts. I have proposed that prototypical Martians adopt an aesthetic tradition based on Phi, "the world's most astonishing number." Perhaps I should put a "Museum of ProtoMartian Arts" into my plan for The City of Euthenia. If I did, would you encourage school children to create Phi-based art and to contribute images of it to a virtual museum?

Hey Scott,

Yep, Stu's much better :-)

To be perfectly honest, I don't think I would buy one of those lottery tickets unless I was sure that the people I'd be sharing the community with had at least *some* of that Right Stuff. For such a venture to succeed it would need to involve people who actually believed in it, probably *only* people who believed in and were committed to it, people who were prepared for - and would welcome - the challenges, who would go into it with their eyes totally open. I hate to use the word "undesirables" but I feel I must - you wouldn't want to live in such a community with people who didn't realise how isolated they'd be, or who would be unsuited psychologically for the task. I'm sure the various Navies of the world wouldn't be too keen on selecting crews for their submarines by lottery, just as NASA won't select the crew of the first manned Mars mission by putting all the astronauts names ina helmet and pulling half a dozen out.

Also, I can't help thinking that if you made entrance, literally, a lottery, well, at the risk of sounding elitist here myself you'd get disruptive elements in the mix, people who had no real interest in or passion for Mars, and who just bought a ticket along with their weekly cash lottery ticket because they were at the same counter. You might get people who actually *wanted* to disrupt the community buying tickets, in the hope that they'd get in and then they'd deliberately undermine it.

I think lotteries in general are a bad way of choosing this kind of thing. I mean, look what happened to Willy Wonka. He thought it was a great idea to put golden lottery tickets in his chocolate bars to select the kids he'd show around the Chocolate Factory, and what a disaster THAT turned into! ;-)

As for your idea - proposal - for a virtual art gallery...? Well, I don't know enough about the Phi side of your idea to comment on that, I'll have to research that on here when I get a chance, but maybe this is something worth pursuing - a "Mars Art" art competition, in schools, with the winners going on show in a virtual "Mars Art Museum" website...?

Stu

Bill White · 2003-12-31 10:50:09

I think lotteries in general are a bad way of choosing this kind of thing. I mean, look what happened to Willy Wonka. He thought it was a great idea to put golden lottery tickets in his chocolate bars to select the kids he'd show around the Chocolate Factory, and what a disaster THAT turned into! ;-)

Stu - I agree with your main point, that lotteries are a bad idea for selecting space travelers,

however, I think you have missed some of the nuances found in the Willy Wonka saga.

Charlie's finding a ticket was pre-determined by the magical genuis of Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder). The other ticket holders were pre-determined as well. Wilder's entire scheme was to test Charlie. Before the ticket scheme was ever hatched, Wonka had already chosen Charlie to be his successor. The lottery scheme was intended as a test to determine whether Charlie was "worthy"

Actually, there is some pretty deep theology and political philosphy lurking not far beneath the surface of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Stu · 2003-12-31 10:59:07

Charlie's finding a ticket was pre-determined by the magical genuis of Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder). The other ticket holders were pre-determined as well.

What? You're saying it was a FIX?!?!?! That nice Willy Wonka criminally rigged the lottery?!!?!?!?!

What was he, Governor of Florida or something?

(Jodie Foster bewildered 'Contact' voice:) I had no idea...

So I guess that means that there's no Father Christmas and no tooth fairy either...

I have to go away and think about this.

Stu

Bill White · 2003-12-31 11:21:00

Charlie's finding a ticket was pre-determined by the magical genuis of Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder). The other ticket holders were pre-determined as well.
What? You're saying it was a FIX?!?!?! That nice Willy Wonka criminally rigged the lottery?!!?!?!?!
What was he, Governor of Florida or something?
(Jodie Foster bewildered 'Contact' voice:) I had no idea...
So I guess that means that there's no Father Christmas and no tooth fairy either...
I have to go away and think about this.
Stu

Dude, you are missing the point.

Gene Wilder =IS= Father Christmas. And everyone is waaay better of when the "good" people have control. Total control. That is what pre-destination is all about. The only question is whether we are worthy.

As for Gene Wilder, I more enjoyed Inga (Teri Garr) as a supporting character rather than Charlie.

= = =

Somewhat more seriously, have you seen any of sci-fi author David Brin's commentary on Star Trek, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings? "Doesn't anyone care about those poor orc-orphans and orc-widows?"

Brin does an outstanding job at uncovering some remarkable political assumptions found within these popular scifi/fantasy epics. Google David Brin and look for salon.com essays among others. Good reading, IMHO, about movies we all take for granted.

Anyway - back on thread - I agree 100% with Scott C. Beach that we need a compelling meta-narrative to support humans to Mars.

With respect, my humble opinoin is that Scott's vision doesn't cut it. Right questions, wrong answers.

But then Robert Zubrin's "Liberatarians Unite" message ain't doing so well either.

clark · 2003-12-31 11:29:38

Try looking at the social commentary dripping out from Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins!

"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!"

She's practically calling for the violent overthrow of society! So subversive, that Mary Poppins.

With respect, my humble opinoin is that Scott's vision doesn't cut it. Right questions, wrong answers.
But then Robert Zubrin's "Liberatarians Unite" message ain't doing so well either.

How is the "Trillions" like Trebbles working out?

Perhaps tone down the language related to creating a pagan religion, it may turn some people off, and generally puts people on guard. One of those "my spidey senses are tingiling" moments.

Try the "idea of Phi", or "the concept of Phi-whatever". Association with religions in terms of creating a synergy, or compositie religion, may be somewhat of a taboo for some beliefs and cultures. Just a thought.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-28 18:05:59

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#2 2003-12-29 09:11:58

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#3 2003-12-29 11:33:33

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#4 2003-12-29 12:10:53

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#5 2003-12-29 12:33:34

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#6 2003-12-29 12:44:57

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#7 2003-12-29 21:23:53

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#8 2003-12-29 21:40:45

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#9 2003-12-30 03:14:25

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#10 2003-12-30 08:47:48

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#11 2003-12-30 10:08:58

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#12 2003-12-30 10:29:52

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#13 2003-12-30 10:43:46

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#14 2003-12-30 10:49:17

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#15 2003-12-30 10:52:16

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#16 2003-12-30 10:55:28

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#17 2003-12-30 11:06:49

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#18 2003-12-30 11:15:35

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#19 2003-12-30 11:28:04

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#20 2003-12-30 19:53:26

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#21 2003-12-31 04:26:06

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#22 2003-12-31 10:50:09

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#23 2003-12-31 10:59:07

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#24 2003-12-31 11:21:00

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

#25 2003-12-31 11:29:38

Re: A New Vision for Mars - Include Ordinary People and Their Kids

Board footer