Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-17 15:26:22

I have yet to see a way for mars to become self-supporting

Yes, you have, but you are too stubborn to accept them.

all you need is one physician at one base and you then have all your bases covered

A better option is called "doing it here".

It would provide a great deal of immediate scientifc return- at a fraction of the cost of a martian mission

Yes, a fraction of the cost, but a fraction which happens to be above unity. Yes, a great deal of scientific return, but nothing like we would find on Mars.

So you're saying that it is cheaper to take 3AU's worth of fuel and launch it from earth versus taking enough fuel to launch into orbit and then refuel there (without the launch weight penalty)? Unless you have some figures to back you up, your assertion is childish and counter-intuitave.

#### it, Clark, I'm going to get you the exact point at which it becomes cheaper to refuel at Luna (assuming certian factors) if its the last thing I do (it is a good excercise for me), but unfortunately I don't have my equations on hand at the moment (I lost my book a few days ago). However, the point should be in the neighborhood of 2-3 AU, varying slightly with the eccentricity and inclination of the target orbit (most asteroids have fairly circular orbits).

clark · 2002-01-17 16:43:35

Yes, you have, but you are too stubborn to accept them.

No, you're too stuborn to realize how unrealistic much of what is proposed truly is. After you're done building grand schemes built on long term investment for payoffs that are seen hundreds of years in the future, you will realize how untenable much of what is offered as "solutions". Take any proposal, accept that it is "do-able". Now, ask what it takes to achieve that- terraformation? What does it take to do that? What would be the minumum requirement? What has to happen or change inn order for it too be achieved? Etc...

That's what I mean Alex- I believe that many of the suggestions are possible, they just aren't practical or realistic. If we lived in a dream world of wishs then you can have a your self-sufficient mars colony- but the reality is that you can't due to technological hurdles that we have only begun to understand or economic paralysis caused by the very fact that the scale of investment and the antcipated payoff is not enough of a justification to divert capital.

Crying about how mars makes economic sense when it clearly dosen't won't get you closer. Mars right now is a pipe dream- the moon is a realistic and tangible goal that furthers the goals of the mars society. Those who support humans to mars need to face facts- we are not ready to go to mars yet. We are ready to go to the moon- and by doing so, it enables us to get to Mars safer, easier, and cheaper.

A better option is called "doing it here".

Not in space- anything that can possibly be automated should be- every human in space is a liability and an extra cost. You don't need a doctor, you need a doctor's skill. One doctor able to operate in multiple areas improves efficiency and reduces overhead- having one doctor in each crerates unnessarry duplication.

Yes, a fraction of the cost, but a fraction which happens to be above unity. Yes, a great deal of scientific return, but nothing like we would find on Mars.

If it is cheaper that means we have more resources to do more science- so there is a net gain. And which has more valuable science is only a matter of opinion.

#### it, Clark, I'm going to get you the exact point at which it becomes cheaper to refuel at Luna (assuming certian factors) if its the last thing I do (it is a good excercise for me), but unfortunately I don't have my equations on hand at the moment (I lost my book a few days ago).

I wait in anticipation.

However, the point should be in the neighborhood of 2-3 AU, varying slightly with the eccentricity and inclination of the target orbit (most asteroids have fairly circular orbits).

Well, if a high school student in new jersey says so, then it must be... do the math and give me some numbers to support your claim.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-17 19:50:14

I have a semirelated question. What is your occupation?

I'm going to propose a sort of compromise viewpoint. I think your plans for going to the Moon are largely unreasonable. On the other hand, it has come to my attention that my plans for going to Mars are also, at the present time, similiar in their dreamy nature. You say we need economics-- well, I agree with that.

Economics, after all, drove the original expansion to America-- would Columbus have ever discovered the new world if he wasn't looking for India first? Would Spain have ever followed up the exploration if they didn't think they would get massive returns? Economics drove the British expansions-- British colonization was all about exploiting native populations. Even the Apollo program was designed around getting prestige, and hence money, for the United States. Greed is the key.

Mars takes a lot of dollars to get to, and the Moon does also. But frankly, I don't see people going to either one unless they get one thing-- money. Real estate is not viable in the near future, although it gradually does become an option after the first bases. Mining raw materials is also not viable as a plan for the first bases. The Economic Case for Mars seems pretty hopeless at this time. Yes, in this, you are right.

The Moon is similiar in this respect. What could you launch to the Moon that would hope to make a profit? A rover for operation by virtual tourists? Bah. Our best bet is space tourism from the economic viewpoint.

But there is one thing that causes governments to be farsighted: getting more power. A very strategic long-term economic move by any of the three major powers on Earth today would be to launch a program for utilizing space resources. Once the resources really started coming in, that power would be elevated to a status which was like Britian in the 1600s, with the other powers, France and Germany, lagging behind. In short, the power which first masters space will rule the world (unless two or more powers master it concurrently, which seems likely, considering that world powers generally do consider thier own survival when making descisions).

The Moon has resources, true. But they really aren't the kind of resources that make a government get excited. You advocate using lunar materials for a long term program of exploration-- but exploration of what? Naturally, if the Moon is just helping explore this "what", then the "what" is the real focus of space exploration. But as I said, this focus is not Mars, although Mars could come in later as a much better stepping stone (esp. with its two moons) to this "what".

The "what" is the asteroid belt.

clark · 2002-01-18 14:19:42

The Economic Case for Mars seems pretty hopeless at this time. Yes, in this, you are right.

If Mars has no economic value, and if we accept that economics is what drives expansion, then we will not expand towards mars.

The Moon is similiar in this respect.

Umm, no- it has no deep gravity well. That's what screws things up on Mars- gravity.

What could you launch to the Moon that would hope to make a profit?

Space based telescopes, medical research, fuel production for use in LEO & GEO or deep space missions, water, oxygen, space based power generation for LEO or GEO infrastructure, special alloys, zero-g crystals, tourism.

A very strategic long-term economic move by any of the three major powers on Earth today would be to launch a program for utilizing space resources.

There is only one major power, and that's the US. There is only one major power that would be able to pull off an independant move like you suggest, and that's the US. Any development in space by other powers will be co-opted by the US under the guise of "international partnerships" or met with a direct challenge by developing means to undermine any economic advantage sought by developing or exploiting space.

In short, the power which first masters space will rule the world (unless two or more powers master it concurrently, which seems likely, considering that world powers generally do consider thier own survival when making descisions).

It takes a bit more than space to rule this world. States look to gain technological edges in key industries that are linked to high profitability- first world countries move away from heavy manufacture of TV's to highly specialized industries like semi-conductors, aerospace engineering, fusion production, etc. States further maintain their power through military, economic and politcal manuvering- space would only be another avenue, but it remains to be seen if true economic or military benefits can be achieved in space.

The Moon has resources, true. But they really aren't the kind of resources that make a government get excited.

Yeah, He3, H20, O2, iron, etc- basic components that can be used to make anything like rocket fuel or air for breathing...real boring and uninteresting stuff... Come on, free water in space is like gold.

You advocate using lunar materials for a long term program of exploration-- but exploration of what? Naturally, if the Moon is just helping explore this "what", then the "what" is the real focus of space exploration.

How about we use lunar resources for FURTHER exploration of space. Exploration of space, in and of itself,is beneficial to humans becuase it gives us a better understanding of how the universe works. I advocate that the moon is the NEXT step- not Mars.

The "what" is the asteroid belt.

No, it is not.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-18 17:06:10

If Mars has no economic value, and if we accept that economics is what drives expansion, then we will not expand towards Mars.

As long as you rely on classic economics you're not going to get anywhere in space. Economics drive corporate expansion, but not colonial. Colonial expansion almost has no reasoning sometimes, expecially in the case of the frontier. The flaw in your reasoning is simple to point out; resources are valuable only locally. Really, how much is regolith worth to a human (or moon dust at that?). The problem is that production is always more costly than product (nothing is free), by that simple fact it's easy to point out that infrastructure would be cheaper to build on Earth, not the Moon. Once this infrastructure exists on Earth, the Moon and Mars both become equal prospects.

Except Mars says, ?Come to me! I am the new frontier! The new America!?

You're not going to go to the Moon or Mars without first LEO, and we don't even have that. Our LEO infrastructure is pathetic, our technology is 20 years old for Gods sake, NASA is only good at sending probes all over the solar system, not putting people into space.

The main problem with the moon is that harvesting all the things you mentioned below is extremely difficult. The moon doesn't have ?deposits? of materials. They're spread over hundreds of square kilometers. Especially in the case of HE3. It would be easier to just build a large collector than to dig up the surface!

There is only one major power, and that's the US. There is only one major power that would be able to pull off an independant move like you suggest, and that's the US.

China is growing at unprecedented rates. And if the US doesn't restructure NASA, China could beat us to Mars. And you're not going to get rid of NASA, NASA owns the American tax-payers.

[...] it remains to be seen if true economic or military benefits can be achieved in space.

It remains to be seen if economics don't implode on themselves for being the most illogical creation of the human mind.

I advocate that the moon is the NEXT step- not Mars.

I advocate that ground and LEO is the next step.

The other steps are obvious. Luna becomes a corporate venture, and Mars becomes the frontier.

robcwillis · 2002-01-18 17:28:26

Mr. Clark,

I'm afraid your arguments seem to be based on several false assumptions combined with an inadequate understanding of space transport technology. You suggest that most payloads delivered to the Moon will not have to be soft-landed. I myself don't know the precise earth escape velocity required to achieve TLI, but exactly what kind of equipment payloads (let alone transport spacecraft) are supposed to survive crashing into the lunar surface at several thousand km/h? Perhaps ingots of iron ore might hold up, but I doubt much in the way of high-tech Moon operations gear would arrive in a useable state.

You have countered that transport costs from the surface of Mars are inherently greater than from the Moon. Wrong again. Obviously Mars has higher gravity, but our old friend the Martian atmosphere more than compensates for this. Present day technology allows us to equip a spacecraft to suck in Martian air to make rocket fuel. I challenge you to suggest exactly how a lunar lander is supposed to scoop up moon rocks and make anything at all. I suppose the hundreds of billions of dollars it could cost to establish the mining and processing infrastructure needed to support lunar in-situ propellant production has not figured into your calculations.

If you are willing to make an investment on this scale, a "beanstalk" type elevator to low orbit prior to boost by rotating tether could work both for the Moon and Mars. Sadly, Earth's gravity is too high for the "beanstalk" idea to be viable for getting stuff into LEO. Any such projects will be cheaper and easier to achieve on Mars because far less effort is needed to make a Martian colony self sufficient in both labor and materials. If you happen to have infinite wealth and power, then be my guest and start building your Moon enterprise.

robcwillis · 2002-01-18 21:31:13

Supplemental - I can't seem to keep my big mouth shut.

Contrary to an earlier Moon First (forces of evil) argument, A Mars colony does NOT need to achieve full scale terraforming as a prerequisite to becoming largely self sufficient. Oceans and a breathable atmosphere are very appealing, but inflatable greenhouses should do nicely for now.

If any of the Moon First claims for near future economic potential were even slightly sane, some consortium of giant multinational corporations would already be working along those lines. Big private capital may be stupid, but not that stupid. The Mars First argument is still valid without claiming to offer near term corporate profits through the exploitation of local resources for the specific purpose of selling them to Earth.

I do, however, strongly agree with the critically important point made about military spending in a previous post. Diverting just a tiny proportion of the current $300 BILLION A YEAR currently being squandered on U.S. "defense" related expenditures would allow for large scale simultaneous near term Mars and Moon related endeavors.

Unfortunately, the greatest intellectual visionaries of our time (George Dubya and Co.) say they must have, for example, several hundred F-22 Raptors. I suppose these are needed to replace the massive losses inflicted by the mighty Iraqi Air Force.

We could have had Mars AND the Moon. Instead, looks like we're gonna get Joint Strike Fighter and more Sea Wolf submarines. Oh joy.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-18 23:23:51

Well, I would just like the point out the fact that in terms of economic wealth the asteroid belt offers far more than Luna could hope to. I mean, there is no competition here. Luna's composition is very limited. It has almost no organic components, which means it all must be imported. Asteroids, by contrast, come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and some of them, the metallic types, have vast amounts of rich mineral ore ready for mining. What more economic incentive could one ask for? Bringing it to Earth is not a problem, either, as long as your ore is refined at the site. The industries of the asteroids are not principally based on science, or tourism, or further exploration-- they are based on something which is far more powerful, and although there are still many technical problems to be solved in bringing down the cost enough to make things worthwhile, once started, the gold mine will not run out for as far in the future as anyone cares to contemplate. Asteroids also have no gravity, which is something of a plus, as it makes rendevous and departure very easy. As far as asteroids supporting a civilization goes, one question cuts the cake-- what are they made of? That is, do asteroids have the material composition to support human colonization?

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-19 00:04:12

Do asteroids have the material composition to support human colonization?

Nope. And you wouldn't want humans living in zero G, anyway. I should point out that asteroids are valuable for one reason, and one reason alone. Their location; they're outside of a gravity well in orbit around the Sun. Ore and other minerals are impossibly expensive to ship into space (especially from Earth), however, we have all the minerals we need in the asteroid belt. The best systems would be autonomous resource miner / refiners, which would take this ?cheap? material and send it to other facilities for processing.

Mars would be one of the best places to set up an asteroid mining facility (though there's nothing keeping us from doing it from Earth except an extra 20 minutes). We could use solar sail ships to send the autonomous vehicles to the belt, and have them return using whatever fuel (probably mined from the asteriods themselves).

The Moon is an interesting spot for gathering minerals, however, the Moon is closer to the Sun with respect to the asteroid belt, and it's also still inside of Earths gravity well.

RobS · 2002-01-19 00:51:08

On the subject of whether people could live in the asteroid belt, I think the zero gee problem is the big one. Ceres has about one twenty-fifth the gravity of the Earth, I think. I'm not sure resources are that much of a problem. One problem is that some asteroids are nickel iron and great for mining, but would be lousy for agriculture or extracting indigenous fuel; the stony and chondritic asteroids, on the other hand would be adequate for agriculture if you can concentrate the sunlight with mirrors, and could make lots or methane and oxygen fuel, but would lack nickel-iron for construction and export. Fortunately the regolith layer of all asteroids is made out of the stuff that has fallen on them, and that's a mix of the types, so stony asteroids will have chunks of nickel-iron and nickel-iron asteroids will have chunks of stony and chondritic material.

Before you mine the asteroids for metals for Martian factories, remember that there are a few zillion tons of asteroid material littering the Martian surface. Since it's a big place--the size of all of Earth's dry land--explorers will soon know that there's a thousand tons of nickel iron exposed by erosion in crater X and other things exposed in other craters as well. With minimal weather for the last billion years, most of the stuff that's fallen to Mars is still intact, rather like the meteorites in Antarctica.

-- Rob S

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-19 17:35:32

The gravity problem is a fairly simple one to solve: just rotate your colonies. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence which clearly states that asteroids do not have the material composition necessary for colonization. I would really appreciate it if someone would provide this evidence, because right now I am starting to suspect it is nonexistant. Furthermore, if asteroids do have the materials necessary for colonization, they are very valuable, as they can be colonized three dimensionally, whereas large bodies like the Earth present a major problem in colonizing the third dimension: gravity. So, structures which are far beyond the wildest dreams of any builder on Earth can be built using asteroidal material. Solar power is availible much better in space than anywhere else, additionally, and the large distances from the Sun involved can be easily compsenated for by using large, solar sail like reflecting devices, much like Zubrin advocates somewhat in his books. Furthermore, the possibility of bringing materials to Earth from asteroids is a much better prospect than that of bringing them from Mars, simply because asteroids have almost no gravity well to climb out of in bringing them. Of course, then again, asteroids face the fact that a greater impulse is necessary to get them to Earth than Martian material is, which is signifigant, but not nearly so disasterous as the Martian gravity well (in the case of the greater transfer impulse, ion engines can be used, while in the Martian case that is, of course, impossible).

So while it seems that asteroid mining is far off because of the sheer mass involved, it is by far the greatest natural import that the inner system has to offer because of its fundamental importance to the human economy.

I am sure that Mars has its advantages. For example, the Martian option of aerobraking makes a final engine burn unnecessary, which means that the cost of import is reduced signifigantly. Plus, Mars has the most raw materials, in the most easy to reach state, available of any body in the solar system besides Earth. Plus, Mars can be terraformed very easily compared to the process of generating an equivilant amount of land in space colony form. I mean, for a fleggling civilization in space, Mars is definitely a huge plus. But long term, when we want new frontiers in this solar system, eventually we are going to have to make them, not find them.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-20 16:01:11

[...] rotate your colonies.

Thats expensive. Especially when they don't need to be there to perform trivial tasks. Sure, we could have bases (to monitor mining locally without a time delay), but I would think that we would need simulated gravity to make them worthwhile.

I would really appreciate it if someone would provide this evidence, because right now I am starting to suspect it is nonexistant.

The consensus is that nickle-iron asteroids are most predominate. I don't know for certain myself, but this definitely wouldn't prevent colonization. The real problem is gravity, and if you're ?rotating colonies? then it really isn't a colony in any sense of the word.

[...] structures which are far beyond the wildest dreams of any builder on Earth can be built using asteroidal material.

Probably, but to make them worthwhile you'd definitely need some sort centrifugal gravity system going on. At least until health problems related to zero G are solved medically.

[...] the possibility of bringing materials to Earth from asteroids is a much better prospect than that of bringing them from Mars, simply because asteroids have almost no gravity well to climb out of in bringing them.

Eventually, once a good interplanetary space infrastructure is in place, asteroids will be the cheapest type of resource in the solar system to obtain, and so exchanging materials between the planets becomes pointless.

clark · 2002-01-21 17:00:58

To robcwillis,

You suggest that most payloads delivered to the Moon will not have to be soft-landed. I myself don't know the precise earth escape velocity required to achieve TLI, but exactly what kind of equipment payloads (let alone transport spacecraft) are supposed to survive crashing into the lunar surface at several thousand km/h?

I'm sure minimum trajectories can be configured to allow for gravity captures from earth to moon to reduce the amount of fuel used- in other words, instead of doing an aerobrake, we utilize the gravity of mars to pull objects within it's orbit. Is it hard to imagine recieving facilities near the moon to facilitate this?

Perhaps ingots of iron ore might hold up, but I doubt much in the way of high-tech Moon operations gear would arrive in a useable state.

You are speaking about an unknown, based on unknown formulas. Do you want me to argue your guess?

You have countered that transport costs from the surface of Mars are inherently greater than from the Moon. Wrong again. Obviously Mars has higher gravity, but our old friend the Martian atmosphere more than compensates for this.

So you would like me to accept that Mars, with antompshere, and more gravity is cheaper to launch from than the moon- which has no atmosphere, and has little gravity? Atmosphere creates drag, which means you need more fuel to break into orbit- more gravity means you need more fuel to reach orbit- more fuel means greater costs.

I challenge you to suggest exactly how a lunar lander is supposed to scoop up moon rocks and make anything at all.

H20, which is KNOWN to be on the moon can be converted into rocket fuel.

I suppose the hundreds of billions of dollars it could cost to establish the mining and processing infrastructure needed to support lunar in-situ propellant production has not figured into your calculations.

One, "hundreds of billions" is a pessimitic opinion offered by only you without any type of reasoning provided for that obviously biased estimate. Two, the Mars Society plan is centered around similar lines- building propellant on site, so if it costs a lot on the moon, it will neccessarily cost a good deal on Mars, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding the ultimate cost. Three, a gas station on the moon does more to serve space exploration than a gas station on Mars would.

If we have to spend the dough, dosen't it make more sense to build the infastructure where it will do the most good and provide us the greatest flexibility in space exploration? The moon at three days...or Mars, at 8 months every 2 years...

If you are willing to make an investment on this scale, a "beanstalk" type elevator to low orbit prior to boost by rotating tether could work both for the Moon and Mars.

Cost of shipping from the moon can be greatly reduced (without a beanstalk) using magnetic rail launchers. Thus you could turn the moon into a manufacturing center- rail launch finsihed goods, crash land raw material onto the surface for collection...

Any such projects will be cheaper and easier to achieve on Mars because far less effort is needed to make a Martian colony self sufficient in both labor and materials.

Keep talking about self-sufficency... A Martian colony will not attain self-sufficency for several generations, so it is meaningless to talk about how mars places us in a better position. We haven't a clue on making REAL closed bio-regenerative system- until that moment, any argument about "self-sufficency" is bull. Then there is all of the "other" stuff we take for granted here on Earth- which we depend on to maintain self-sufficency- all of that has to be done over in space. It takes time, a lot of time- and the labor involved in building in vacum and near vacum is the same, so spare me you rhetoric.

Oceans and a breathable atmosphere are very appealing, but inflatable greenhouses should do nicely for now.

Yeah, too bad we can't make the "mini-world" bubble last for any appreciable amount of time. Look into the research into bio-dome 1 & 2 to see where that went. It seems self regulating systems require a large enough system to be flexible to small variations- smaller systems don't seem to have enough critical mass to maintain equilibrium.

If any of the Moon First claims for near future economic potential were even slightly sane, some consortium of giant multinational corporations would already be working along those lines.

Actually, there are several- hotels, toruism, mineral extraction, power produiction, etc...

I do, however, strongly agree with the critically important point made about military spending in a previous post. Diverting just a tiny proportion of the current $300 BILLION A YEAR currently being squandered on U.S. "defense" related expenditures would allow for large scale simultaneous near term Mars and Moon related endeavors.

While I agree in principal that much of our US tax dollars are wasted, I would hardly consider our expenditures in Defense to be "squandered". I suppose we could have our pilots fly vintage WW2 airplanes- that might free up some funds. Maybe we could have our army men pay for their own weapons- would that be acceptable? Or would you prefer for America to disolve it's highly equipped, highly trained, and highly effective military and not worry about world affairs or foreign oppresion? After all, slapping a rocket on your butt is a dollar well spent versus that same dollar protecting your freedoms...

Everyone thinks that money should be spent here in lieu of there- unless you have a specfic gripe, you waste air.

Unfortunately, the greatest intellectual visionaries of our time (George Dubya and Co.) say they must have, for example, several hundred F-22 Raptors. I suppose these are needed to replace the massive losses inflicted by the mighty Iraqi Air Force.

Your sarcasm betrays you- what's the reason we have so few losses? Could it be our unrelenting dedication to maintaing our military? Maybe...just maybe.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-21 17:33:21

Is it hard to imagine recieving facilities near the moon to facilitate this?

No. It would still take relatively the same ammount of fuel it would take if we were to come to a complete stop (even when you're in a gravity well you're still going X speed, you have to slow down somehow). The reason aerobreaking works on Mars is because of atmosphereic friction.

H20, which is KNOWN to be on the moon can be converted into rocket fuel.

Can you provide evidence for deposits that aren't spread over hundreds of square kilometers? Basically, water exists in the ?shade? and frankly, that doesn't answer anything.

So if it costs a lot on the moon, it will neccessarily cost a good deal on Mars.

On Mars, you can take most of the basic components you need right out of the atmosphere. The hydrogen could be taken from any of the many many deposits that exist on Mars. Odyssey will determine where the best facilities should be set up. Can you tell us where the best facilities should be set up on the Moon? Let me guess, ?somewhere near the poles in the shades.? That's good.

The moon at three days...or Mars, at 8 months every 2 years...

Or Earth... 24/7/365.

Cost of shipping from the moon can be greatly reduced (without a beanstalk) using magnetic rail launchers.

You still have to escape Earths gravity, clark, nothing is free. All of your rail launched material will go into orbit around Earth. I can see sending things to Earth using a rail launcher, however, most resources are more valuable locally, so these rails may only be good for human transport.

A Martian colony will not attain self-sufficency for several generations [...]

You are speaking about an unknown, based on unknown formulas. Do you want me to argue your guess?

Smaller [eco-]systems don't seem to have enough critical mass to maintain equilibrium.

Yeah, who says it has to be based on biology? A biodome can exist without an ?ecosystem.? The biodomes you speak of failed because there was ?unnatural intervention.? We are good with hydroponics. We are good with air oxygenation. We are good with water recycling. So stop thinking an ecosystem with flowers, and birds and bugs, and all that nature crap is necessary.

Actually, there are several- hotels, toruism, mineral extraction, power produiction, etc...

Yes, a corporate venture that really doesn't pertain to the goals of the Mars Society.

[...] and not worry about world affairs or foreign oppresion?

What about a little man in a turbin oppresses you? Or were you talking about our oppression of foreigners?

Your sarcasm betrays you- what's the reason we have so few losses? Could it be our unrelenting dedication to maintaing our military? Maybe... just maybe.

Um, this was a cowards war. Do you even know the state of Afghanistan before we even attacked? It was a piece of cake, my friend. The losses we have had are actually pathetic, considering the simplicity of the attacks. It was a ?blow everything up? scenerio.

About maintaining our military... don't forget Israel's, among others.

clark · 2002-01-22 07:57:34

Can you provide evidence for deposits that aren't spread over hundreds of square kilometers? Basically, water exists in the ?shade? and frankly, that doesn't answer anything.

Water exsists on the moon in a quanitiy sufficient for human use, end of story. All the supposition regarding water on Mars is based on one big educated guess, so spare me this drivel.

The hydrogen could be taken from any of the many many deposits that exist on Mars. Odyssey will determine where the best facilities should be set up. Can you tell us where the best facilities should be set up on the Moon? Let me guess, ?somewhere near the poles in the shades.? That's good.

Where the 'hydrogen' is on Mars? Somewhere near the poles I would imagine. Let me guess, set up a base near the martian poles, that's good.

Or Earth... 24/7/365.

I fail to see your point- you make a snide remark to my comment that is related to the value of a "gas station" on mars versus one on the moon. In order to reduce launch costs, it behooves all space proponents to push for development of luna as a propellant facility.

Like it or not, most human endeavors in space will originate from Earth-as such, we derive the most value from anything that increases our ability to access space from earth- the moon does more for us in this regard than mars ever will.

You still have to escape Earths gravity, clark, nothing is free. All of your rail launched material will go into orbit around Earth. I can see sending things to Earth using a rail launcher, however, most resources are more valuable locally, so these rails may only be good for human transport.

Hmmm, a cheap way to send material into LEO...where most human activity takes place....
We can escape earth's gravity- it becomes harder, and more exspensive to break into GEO and beyond- a moon with a rail launcher to launch fuel and other supplies makes it much easier and cheaper to get where ever we wish to go. that is the point.

You are speaking about an unknown, based on unknown formulas. Do you want me to argue your guess? [martian colony attaining self-sufficency in several generations]

Yes. Take the most optimitic estimate using today's technology and you will find that 'self-sufficiency' is not a practical goal. We hav much more to learn.

Yeah, who says it has to be based on biology? A biodome can exist without an ?ecosystem.? The biodomes you speak of failed because there was ?unnatural intervention.? We are good with hydroponics. We are good with air oxygenation. We are good with water recycling. So stop thinking an ecosystem with flowers, and birds and bugs, and all that nature crap is necessary.

Then you will never have a truly self-replenshing system- you will never achieve self-sufficency. Using a more mechanical and human guided system is more practical, however, it requries constant maintainence and requires constant fuel (ie nitrogen, hydrogen, other assorted minerals, etc) You thus become dependant upon outside sources for maintaing life.

Yes, a corporate venture that really doesn't pertain to the goals of the Mars Society.

Yet a statement that pertains to a direct question posed by another person... my point is valid, my statement correct- why are you making an irrelevant comment between me and another person?

What about a little man in a turbin oppresses you? Or were you talking about our oppression of foreigners?

A little man in a turbin? Your belittling attitude and disrespectful sterotype is disgusting. Do you call the people in Africa, little Sambo men? Do you call native americans, little In-gines? Maybe you didn't mean it, however, your callous attitude regarding deragotary names demonstrates your own ignorance and is an embarassment for all americans.

Um, this was a cowards war.

Spoken from behind a PC in a fat land. I'm sure the American soldiers on the ground would agree with your assesment. I'm sure the fallen soldiers families would also agree with your assesment. I'm sure the people liberated from Taliban rule would all agree with you.

People who fight for their beliefs- who die for their beliefs are not cowards. Your statements and assertions are without any basis and are merely ignorant opinions.

Do you even know the state of Afghanistan before we even attacked? It was a piece of cake, my friend. .

Yes, I do. I also know that Afghanistan has managed to mangle the British and the Soviet army so badly that they were both forced to retreat in defeat.

The losses we have had are actually pathetic, considering the simplicity of the attacks. It was a ?blow everything up? scenerio.

This isn't some video game, stop treating it as such. It is a war. People die, innocent and guilty alike. It is a sad state of affairs that we have had to take such measures. You talk about "simplicity of the attacks" without regard to the people that these attacks affect. This is not surgery, this is not clean. Little children maimed is not simple. Our men and women, fighting over there- risking their lives is not simple. To have you reduce all of their contributions and all of their sacrifice is insulting.

About maintaining our military... don't forget Israel's, among others.

Do you really want to start in on this? Maybe you should shut up and take a good look at who you are and where you live before you get on your high horse. Do you drive? Do you like cheap consumer electronics? Do you enjoy affordable food? Do you enjoy your liberties? Do you enjoy your 13 million chanells of television? Do you enjoy all of those PC games? Do you enjoy flipping a switch and having power? Do you enjoy picking up a phone and being able to connect with almost anyone you know? Do you like you clean water? Do you like the relative saftey of your home?

We maintain other militaries and out own for the sole purpose of maintaing OUR way of life. That is, and whas, governed ALL of our governments actions. Can it be done differently, yes, would it be as effective, no one knows.

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-22 11:28:47

I'm sure the people liberated from Taliban rule would all agree with you.

Perhaps you mean the thousands of families that we have destroyed (their family members have been killed) from both direct and indirect (in the case where food has stopped) effects of the bombing. America respects human life... except when its not American.

Afghanistan has managed to mangle the British and the Soviet army so badly that they were both forced to retreat in defeat.

That was a completely different situation. In the war with the Soviets, Afghanistan had ample help from the West, which often took the form of installing the very kinds of terrorist organizations and their activities which have now attacked the USA in the form of Al-Queda. Now our actions have backfired horribly.

More later.

clark · 2002-01-22 13:32:37

Perhaps you mean the thousands of families that we have destroyed (their family members have been killed) from both direct and indirect (in the case where food has stopped) effects of the bombing. America respects human life... except when its not American.

Or perhaps the millions of Afghanistan's that can now return to relative peace. Or the millions that were tortured, oppresed, and subjugated by an oppresive interpertation of religious text enforced by abunch of bandits.

Am I sorry that innocent people died in Afghanistan, yes- as a human being we should all be saddened. Am I sorry that there were few (if any) alternatives other than military force to restore OUR security, yes. SHould we have done it differently, no. Weep for those who lost their lives unjustly- we can make ammends by supporting the Afghanistan people and help rebuild their shattered country- however, do not neglect the fact that the amount of innocent life lost was minimal and that the US went to great lengths to ensure that innocent people were not killed.

That was a completely different situation. In the war with the Soviets, Afghanistan had ample help from the West, which often took the form of installing the very kinds of terrorist organizations and their activities which have now attacked the USA in the form of Al-Queda. Now our actions have backfired horribly.

Which actions have backfired? Do you know why we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place? Are you aware of our actions prior, during, and after the Soviet occupation? What evidence is there that supports your rather unfounded claim that the US installed terroist organizations in Afghanistan?

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-22 15:07:13

All the supposition regarding water on Mars is based on one big educated guess, so spare me this drivel.

First of all, we know for certain water exists in extremely large quantities on the poles. Secondly, I said that ?Odyssey should help us determine where the best facilities should be set up.? The poles are not the only place to go. Why didn't you address the comment about fuel being made from atmoshpere? You think it's easier to cultivate hundreds of thousands of tonnes of moon dust (making sure the whole process is somehow maintained at a very cold temperature, or at least contained extremely well) than it is to suck in air for a period of time? Please. You spare me the #### drivel.

And BTW, you can certainly get hydrogen from the atmosphere on Mars, it would just take way more time and energy than it's worth, but it is definitely possible.

Where the 'hydrogen' is on Mars? Somewhere near the poles I would imagine. Let me guess, set up a base near the martian poles, that's good.

Ask me that in a few months when we have solid data from Odyssey. The poles are certainly a good candidate at the momment, but there are 300 square kilometers of water ice there. So yes, #### straight, that's good.

[...] the moon does more for us in this regard than Mars ever will.

The moon is just as far away from an experience point of view. And I don't hear anyone ranting and raving about the moon, clark. Except people who can't provide evidence of large easy to obtain deposits there.

Look, when people are going to the moon, people will be going to Mars, can you accept that little axiom?

[...] a moon with a rail launcher to launch fuel and other supplies makes it much easier and cheaper to get where ever we wish to go.

Yes, and while you're using relatively the same ammount of energy to get to the moon, people will be going to Mars. Except people will have a #### of a lot easier time on Mars since they have plenty of water to work with. In large deposits. Not in the shade. And not in hundreds of tonnes of material.

With Mars there's the whole, search for life thing. And the whole pioneer thing. The whole new civilization thing. But we're forgetting that.

A moon base would be better off controlled remotely. Hmm, that's a nice idea actually, I'll look into that. No need for silly facilities to hold humans that really don't need to be there.

Yes. Take the most optimitic estimate using today's technology and you will find that 'self-sufficiency' is not a practical goal.

I'm starting to wonder if you really know anything about todays technology.

You thus become dependant upon outside sources for maintaing life.

Oh, the process could be reliant on either sunlight or nuclear fuel, but it wouldn't have to be chemical based. As long as the system was contained we wouldn't require outside resources. Biological systems recycle naturally, we just have to design our mechanical systems (which could have biological integration, especially for waste reclamation) to also recycle. Not a bad idea really, since waste is inefficiency.

[...] why are you making an irrelevant comment between me and another person?

Oh, it's not irrelevant. The tourism industry uses practical technology, they don't invent it. I keep having to tell you the chicken and the egg scenerio, and it's beginning to annoy me. You're not going to be able to build a hotel on the moon until the infrastructure is there (oh, it wouldn't be self sufficient, either- because you could build a self sufficient infrastructure on Mars way easier than the moon). And once it is, there is nothing stopping us from going to Mars except people who don't know what they're talking about.

Maybe you didn't mean it, however, your callous attitude regarding deragotary names demonstrates your own ignorance and is an embarassment for all americans.

Callous attitude? Did you even read what I said? I don't think you're interpreting my statements properly. That was sarcasm, clark, you'll be surprised to see how compassionate I am when I dig into your ridiculous defenses of genocide.

I'm sure the American soldiers on the ground would agree with your assesment.

They have a job to do and orders to take. You should remind yourself that this war was an air war for the most part. I won't address the rest of your comments, simply because they're too one sided (and I don't have time).

(But I don't see how ?Israel? is giving me all these nice things you're listing. And I don't have electricity because my government bombs an innocent person in some third world country.)

Or perhaps the millions of Afghanistan's that can now return to relative peace.

If you think, for one minute, that Afghanistan is going to be peaceful, then you are more ignorant than you claim I am.

[...] however, do not neglect the fact that the amount of innocent life lost was minimal and that the US went to great lengths to ensure that innocent people were not killed.

The ammount of lost lives was comparable to 11 World Trade Center attacks population-wise. And more and more are dying each and every day. So really, I don't know where your compassion is here. You know what we've sucessfully done, clark? Pissed them off.

What evidence is there that supports your rather unfounded claim that the US installed terroist organizations in Afghanistan?

What rock have you been sleeping under? It's a well known fact that the US has and does support terrorist activity abroad. I'm at work, but I will get you websites later. It's disgusting someone as intelligent as you should be so uninformed about US foreign policy. Talk about blind sheep syndrom.

clark · 2002-01-22 16:13:49

First of all, we know for certain water exists in extremely large quantities on the poles.

We do!? Well then, I guess these reports regarding the poles being made up of Carbon Dioxide Ice is full of it. So please, tell us what NASA dosen't know- where the water is, and how much there is.

www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/10/snows.of.mars.ap/
www.nature.com/nsu/011213/011213-1.html

Secondly, I said that ?Odyssey should help us determine where the best facilities should be set up.? The poles are not the only place to go.

Well, considering that we don't know where ANY water is on Mars, let alone how much there is, wouldn't it make sense to set up a base near the likeliest place water MIGHT be found? Wouldn't it also make sense to locate the base near local supplies of water since any breakdown in the transportation of the water leads to death.

As for the moon- Clementine has already mapped out many places where water can be found.

Why didn't you address the comment about fuel being made from atmoshpere?

Why haven't you addressed several of my previous questions? I didn't address it specfically becuase it is a moot point- your plan for mars as a propellant factory requires untested technology and finished machinery to produce the fuel- all of which requires time and money- the moon is in the same boat- doing either will not be easy, both are equally hard so I suggest we drop it unless you have specfic numbers that demonstrate how it is easier to produce fuel on Mars versus the moon.

Ask me that in a few months when we have solid data from Odyssey. The poles are certainly a good candidate at the momment, but there are 300 square kilometers of water ice there.

Please educate me, where exactly did you learn that the martian poles contain 300 square kilometers of WATER-ICE?

The moon is just as far away from an experience point of view. And I don't hear anyone ranting and raving about the moon, clark. Except people who can't provide evidence of large easy to obtain deposits there.

The moon and Mars are not the same from an experience point of view- Mars requires a solution for long term exsposure to zero-g. Mars requires solutions to long term exsposure to radiation in space. Mars requires more experience in aero-braking, landing, and lift-off on planetary bodies with atmospheres. Mars requires a long term sustainable bio-regenerative system. Mars requires planning and saftey measures that take into account resupply and recovery efforts that must deal with a 2 year window.

The moon is closer, and is more leniant on the learning curve. Try dealing with these issues.

Look, when people are going to the moon, people will be going to Mars, can you accept that little axiom?

No, when people are ready for the moon, they will almost be ready for Mars. Better to think of the Moon as a test run for an eventual Human to Mars mission.

Yes, and while you're using relatively the same ammount of energy to get to the moon, people will be going to Mars. Except people will have a #### of a lot easier time on Mars since they have plenty of water to work with. In large deposits. Not in the shade. And not in hundreds of tonnes of material.

I still doubt your water assertion. People on the moon will also have access to more support from Earth, allowing for faster development, thus overcoming any handicaps involved with building a sustained presence on the moon. What will you have on Mars? A couple of people too busy looking at rocks.

With Mars there's the whole, search for life thing. And the whole pioneer thing. The whole new civilization thing. But we're forgetting that.

Search for life? Then shouldn't a more cautious approach be used to ensure there is no contaimination from earth to mars? As for the "pioneer"- bah, prove it. New civilization? You don't need mars for that- come on, you're up on your philosphy Josh, you know this is a silly argument.

A moon base would be better off controlled remotely. Hmm, that's a nice idea actually, I'll look into that. No need for silly facilities to hold humans that really don't need to be there.

And that in a nutshell is why humans to mars will never be more than a scientific outpost- humans don't need to be there.

I'm starting to wonder if you really know anything about todays technology.

I'll give that evaluation more credit once you establish you know what you are talking about- ie water on mars.

As long as the system was contained we wouldn't require outside resources. Biological systems recycle naturally, we just have to design our mechanical systems (which could have biological integration, especially for waste reclamation) to also recycle. Not a bad idea really, since waste is inefficiency.

A completely contained system...well, that's all were missing... {sarcasm}. You question me on technology and then you proceed to reduce a massive technological hurdle to just a few "this and that's". Read up on Biodome 1 & 2 and then do some more research on the state (and hurdles) that currently face our bio-regenerative systems and the problems with maintaing truely "contained" systems.

Callous attitude? Did you even read what I said? I don't think you're interpreting my statements properly. That was sarcasm, clark, you'll be surprised to see how compassionate I am when I dig into your ridiculous defenses of genocide.

I noted your sarcasm, I just wonder why you choose to make dergatory stero-types about other people...is that really an effective way to communicate?

They have a job to do and orders to take. You should remind yourself that this war was an air war for the most part. I won't address the rest of your comments, simply because they're too one sided (and I don't have time).

You should remind YOURSELF that American men and women are risking, and losing their lives for their beliefs. Wether or not you agree with American policies, wether or not you agree with those who must fight is beside the point- calling the war a "cowards war" implicates them as "cowards".

(But I don't see how ?Israel? is giving me all these nice things you're listing. And I don't have electricity because my government bombs an innocent person in some third world country.)

Okay Josh, try this: Electricity is made by generators. Generators produce electrcity by heating water into steam. We are able to make steam through our use of fire. We are able to maintain our fires with [DRUM ROLL] OIL. Where does the majority of our OIL come from? Whom do we depend on in that region of the world to maintain stability and act as a force projection? Next time you turn on your lights, thank god for the US military and our continued support of Isreal which allows us to maintain defacto control and influence over oil supplies- which we depend on to maintain our way of life.

If you would like, I can draw you a map on how everything else you take for granted is the result of US superiority which is enforced by our economic strength and ensured by our military superiority. All so you can have cheap food and cheap products.

If you think, for one minute, that Afghanistan is going to be peaceful, then you are more ignorant than you claim I am.

I did say "relative" peace, please try to read my posts before replying.

The ammount of lost lives was comparable to 11 World Trade Center attacks population-wise. And more and more are dying each and every day. So really, I don't know where your compassion is here. You know what we've sucessfully done, clark? Pissed them off.

The loss of life is truly atragedy, as I have stated before. War is messy, deal with it. Would you rather 11 more attacks occured on US soil? You want to know what we have done for them? We have given them their country back. We have ousted fundamentalist religous rulers who oppresed minorites and women. We have also arranged to help rebuild a country devastated from 20 years of war and civil war.

What rock have you been sleeping under? It's a well known fact that the US has and does support terrorist activity abroad.

I await the "website".

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-22 16:46:01

Heheh, god, I love this. I love debates. I'm still at work, however, but I can quickly answer your first question as to whether or not there is water on Mars.

Read this from the MOC and MOLA teams:

Approximately 2.6 million of these laser pulse measurements were assembled into a topographic grid of the north pole with a spatial resolution of .6 miles (one kilometer) and a vertical accuracy of 15-90 feet (5-30 meters). A peer-reviewed paper based on the measurements will be published in the Dec. 11 issue of Science magazine.
The topographic map reveals that the ice cap is about 750 miles (1,200 kilometers) across, with a maximum thickness of 1.8 miles (3 kilometers). The cap is cut by canyons and troughs that plunge to as deep as 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) beneath the surface. "Similar features do not occur on any glacial or polar terrain on Earth," said Dr. Maria Zuber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. "They appear to be carved by wind and evaporation of ice."
The MOLA data also reveal that large areas of the ice cap are extremely smooth, with elevations that vary by only a few feet over many miles. In some areas the ice cap is surrounded by large mounds of ice, tens of miles across and up to half a mile in height. "These structures appear to be remnants of the cap from a time when it was larger than at present," Zuber said. Impact craters surrounding the cap appear to be filled with ice and dust that was either deposited by wind or condensation, or perhaps remains from an earlier period when the ice cap was larger.
The shape of the polar cap indicates that it is composed primarily of water ice, with a volume of 300,000 cubic miles (1.2 million cubic kilometers). The cap has an average thickness of 0.64 miles (1.03 kilometers) and covers an area 1.5 times the size of Texas. For comparison, the volume of the Martian north polar cap is less than half that of the Greenland ice cap, and about four percent of the Antarctic ice sheet.
The estimated volume of the north ice cap is about 10 times less than the minimum volume of an ancient ocean that some scientists believe once existed on Mars. If a large body of water once existed on the red planet, the remainder of the water must presently be stored below the surface and in the much smaller south polar cap, or have been lost to space. But such a large amount of unaccounted-for water is not easily explained by current models of Martian evolution.

Source: http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/agu_f98.html

And this.

The portion of the martian south polar cap that persists through each southern hemisphere summer is known as the residual cap. This Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) image shows a 2.9 by 4.8 km (1.8 by 3 mi) area of the south polar residual cap as it appeared in mid-summer on 23 February 2000.

Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs....ex.html

There.

Well, considering that we don't know where ANY water is on Mars, let alone how much there is, wouldn't it make sense to set up a base near the likeliest place water MIGHT be found?

We don't know that there is liquid water on Mars. The point of every recent (the last two or three years) Mars-related NASA press conference was to determine if liquid water existed on Mars. Liquid water has broad implications because it means life could still exist there. If a NASA scientist could prove that there was liquid water, then that NASA scientist could try to convince tax payers to send them there to check it out. (Be it with a rover or in person.)

And it should be noted that my numbers were way way off (I knew it was 300 something). It's actually more like 1.6 million cubic kilometers of water ice. Tee hee.

clark · 2002-01-22 16:54:28

Source: http://ltpwww.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/agu_f98.html

You are refrencing a 98 study- we have more up to date studies which state that the polar caps are composed primarily of carbon dioxide.

clark · 2002-01-22 16:58:14

The report you linked to was from 98- more up to date reports exsist whihc show that the poles are carbon dioxide ice, not water ice. They assumed that it was water, then had susequent findings whihc showed that there was no water ice. Anything more up to date than that which clearly establishes your original claim?

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-22 17:02:21

I can't find the site for the preliminary reports from Odyssey that state that it has confirmed large deposits of hydrogen on Mars. However, simply because that report was from '98 that doesn't make it inaccurate. All of the reports about the residual caps all refer to the southern polar cap. Can you provide a site that refers to the nothern ice cap andits compisition?

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-01-22 21:08:07

http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm

I can get you more if you like. The information there is mostly a chronicle of Afghanistan's history since 1980, but it does contain some information in the beginning about specific US terrorist activities. There is an advisor in there whose name starts with Z (it is a wierd name) who I have seen been mentioned before in connection to it.

Am I sorry that innocent people died in Afghanistan, yes- as a human being we should all be saddened.

Yes, innocent life is a tragic thing... that is why we shouldn't commit actions which murder just as many people as were killed in the World Trade Center (and perhaps a good deal more).

Am I sorry that there were few (if any) alternatives other than military force to restore OUR security, yes.

There were alternatives. For example, I am fairly sure (if anyone can verify, that would be helpful) that Afghanistan was willing to negotiate for the trial of bin Laden in Saudi Arabia even with the lack of evidence by the USA. Furthermore, all the Taliban asked us for was some evidence to say bin Laden definitely was in on it, and then they probably would have handed him over to the US itself, provided the evidence was unquestionable (I've heard reports that the video "on someone's floor" we found was a fraud, but I can't confirm that). For an idea of how ridiculous this situation really is, what do you think would happen, if, say, Brazil's government decided that an important US official was a terrorist in a recent bombing there and asked to hand him over, with little or no evidence?

we can make ammends by supporting the Afghanistan people and help rebuild their shattered country- however, do not neglect the fact that the amount of innocent life lost was minimal and that the US went to great lengths to ensure that innocent people were not killed

How reassuring. Just like bin Laden can make amends by donating his fortune to help rebuild the World Trade Center, and everything will be fine. Of course. I forgot, silly me. Oh, by the way, why don't we send them a big apology card for bringing all those nice nutcases there to help destroy the USSR. Then everyone will say "Oh, we forgive you, we love America".

Which actions have backfired?

Bringing large numbers of Islamic radicals to one place is the most fundamental error in this particular case.

Do you know why we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place?

To "defend" it from the USSR. Which is ridiculous nonsense, of course, since by this wonderful "defense" we installed lovely murderous regimes there which have continued to this day, an example being the barbarians collectively known as the NA.

Are you aware of our actions prior, during, and after the Soviet occupation?

Yes. What actions did you want to talk about?

--------------

Anyway, in conclusion, the US has acted with supreme arrogance over the last few months with regard to this particular case, and although it would not be appropriate to have a discussion over it, I believe that US arrogance has been the norm for the past fifty to eighty five years (stepped up especially with the smaller number).

We can cut the military.

Josh Cryer · 2002-01-23 01:11:58

Wether or not you agree with American policies, wether or not you agree with those who must fight is beside the point- calling the war a "cowards war" implicates them as "cowards".

I call it like I see it (as bold and ?callous? as it may have been). If I don't agree, I'm going to voice my opinion. What is democracy without criticism or dissent? I'll tell you what it is, it's the blind following the blind, that's what it is. You don't even seem to have a critical eye, you simply take things for granted. Yes, the men on the ground are very brave men, however, the war itself was a pitiful little war of technology against the stone age.

I am fairly sure (if anyone can verify, that would be helpful) that Afghanistan was willing to negotiate for the trial of bin Laden in Saudi Arabia even with the lack of evidence by the USA.

Not Afganistan, since they didn't have a government installed at that time, but rather the Taliban. They asked the US to allow them to hand over bin Laden numerous times before the attacks occured, all they asked for was evidence. Of course, giving what little evidence we did have could have led to them covering up more of their organizations, and anyway, they're just Afgans, they don't matter. We're better than them. They're not human. Oil is more important. (Sarcasm.)

We'll see how things pan out.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-01-17 15:26:22

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#52 2002-01-17 16:43:35

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#53 2002-01-17 19:50:14

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#54 2002-01-18 14:19:42

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#55 2002-01-18 17:06:10

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#56 2002-01-18 17:28:26

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#57 2002-01-18 21:31:13

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#58 2002-01-18 23:23:51

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#59 2002-01-19 00:04:12

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#60 2002-01-19 00:51:08

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#61 2002-01-19 17:35:32

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#62 2002-01-20 16:01:11

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#63 2002-01-21 17:00:58

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#64 2002-01-21 17:33:21

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#65 2002-01-22 07:57:34

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#66 2002-01-22 11:28:47

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#67 2002-01-22 13:32:37

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#68 2002-01-22 15:07:13

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#69 2002-01-22 16:13:49

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#70 2002-01-22 16:46:01

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#71 2002-01-22 16:54:28

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#72 2002-01-22 16:58:14

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#73 2002-01-22 17:02:21

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#74 2002-01-22 21:08:07

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

#75 2002-01-23 01:11:58

Re: Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now.

Board footer