The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

BWhite · 2004-06-22 14:55:21

Smurf writes:

This is just about nationalism not science, exploration or economic value.

Not nationalism, exactly. Its more about civilizations (see Huntington's Clash of Civilizations).

Science? Actually, I like science.

But the "Lets do Mars for science crowd" might raise a few dollars and a small handful of Congress-people between them. Sincere science is what will get done while the real power brokers ain't looking. How many "scientists" flew on Apollo?

exploration? Frankly, I have no idea how GWB or Sean O'Keefe would define "exploration" - - I suspect that word will morph its meaning as circumstances dictate.

economic value? I predict that the great geo-political struggle of the 21st and maybe early 22nd century will be about WHO gets to write the rules for ownership of celestial property.

America? China? the United Nations?

BWhite · 2004-06-22 14:59:37

True, but we could just focus on that directly instead of hoping we learn these new skills by going to the stars. How is the indirect path better than the direct one?

Because there are a great many people who will accept these lessons indirectly while resisting them when presented directly.

Live a few decades in a CELSS environment and I daresay one's whole attitude towards environmental issues will change.

= = =

On other words too many people are too greedy, dense and short sighted to get the message when spelled out bluntly.

After all, global warming is a liberal myth fabricated to allow black helicopters to rule the world.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-22 15:03:07

After all, global warming is a liberal myth fabricated to allow black helicopters to rule the world.

:laugh:

C'mon, you know they got rid of those helicopters, right? Gettin' too conspicous.

clark · 2004-06-22 15:06:09

Because there are a great many people who will accept these lessons indirectly while resisting them when presented directly.

Sounds like rationalization of an idle desire. It fits nicely, but I still don't buy it.

We could spend the same time and money educating everyone, or we could send 6 people to Mars. You're telling me that 6 people sent to Mars for a couple of months will have a more profound impact than 50 billion over ten years poured into the education system? What is it that you like to point out about Saudi Arabia and their schools again?

Live a few decades in a CELSS environment and I daresay one's whole attitude towards environmental issues will change.

Okay, that's great for those in the CELSS environment. Now, what about the teeming world of 10 billion?

On other words too many people are too greedy, dense and short sighted to get the message when spelled out bluntly.

LOL! Yet you rely on these virtues to take you to where you want to go! Do you think that they will undo themselves by exploiting them?

After all, global warming is a liberal myth fabricated to allow black helicopters to rule the world.

No the world is flat, and Idaho dosen't exsist- it's a fabrication of the US map industry.

BWhite · 2004-06-22 15:24:16

True, but we could just focus on that directly instead of hoping we learn these new skills by going to the stars. How is the indirect path better than the direct one?
Because there are a great many people who will accept these lessons indirectly while resisting them when presented directly.
Live a few decades in a CELSS environment and I daresay one's whole attitude towards environmental issues will change.
= = =
On other words too many people are too greedy, dense and short sighted to get the message when spelled out bluntly.
After all, global warming is a liberal myth fabricated to allow black helicopters to rule the world.

It also buys us more time to get it right.

A species that can survive on multiple planets and can live in space harvesting solar energy and asteroids would be very hard to exterminate.

Well, a supernova would still do it nicely enough, but global warming, asteroids hitting the Earth, AIDS spread by holding hands or breathing on an airliner, stuff like that would be catastrophic yet would not necessarily mean extinction of the species.

clark · 2004-06-22 15:28:40

It also buys us more time to get it right.

To get what right?

A species that can survive on multiple planets and can live in space harvesting solar energy and asteroids would be very hard to exterminate.

I would think so. Fermi's Paradox comes to mind though. ???

Well, a supernova would still do it nicely enough, but global warming, asteroids hitting the Earth, AIDS spread by holding hands or breathing on an airliner, stuff like that would be catastrophic yet would not necessarily mean extinction of the species.

Yet each of those problems (save the super nova) can be fought directly, or though other means other than space travel. We don't need people in space to harvest the resources in space. We don't need people in space to solve AIDS or global warming. So why go?

smurf975 · 2004-06-22 15:46:36

On other words too many people are too greedy, dense and short sighted to get the message when spelled out bluntly.

Maybe you are not able to explain nature your plans well, as it it has no other message then: "We are all going to die!", we need Mars.

No we don't need Mars and the human race is not going extinct in the next 100 year. Even with AIDS, war and hunger. Humans have gone through a lot of bad situations for instance the black plaque.

Global warming can be fought by other means and should be anyway should there be humans on Mars or not. This counts also for many of your other arguments.

It takes a great person to explain something difficult as simple. If you can't that means you don't understand it your self and you are just acting like a robot spitting out information that was fed into you.

Now instead of saying that anyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid, come up with a solid business plan. As you are so smart that should be easy for you.

clark · 2004-06-22 15:56:16

:laugh:

Smurf, Bill is quite intelligent and talented.

I think you may misunderstand this conversation between us, we've been having it for a while (in various forms, on various topics). We all play a part, and Bill invariably plays his all too well. :;):

MarsDog · 2004-06-22 15:59:01

economic value? I predict that the great geo-political struggle of the 21st and maybe early 22nd century will be about WHO gets to write the rules for ownership of celestial property.

Earth will have the significance of the rainforest,
where the remaining chimps are still content ?

smurf975 · 2004-06-22 16:02:31

:laugh:
Smurf, Bill is quite intelligent and talented.
I think you may misunderstand this conversation between us, we've been having it for a while (in various forms, on various topics). We all play a part, and Bill invariably plays his all too well. :;):

Ok, but his arguments (not his thoughts) will get him no where. He is saying basically that the end of Earth is near, we need Mars. How many times have people in history told that before?

Basically he is speaking like a cult leader: "The end is near, the others are blind sheep, they can't understand, we are better, follow me."

TwinBeam · 2004-06-22 16:07:32

a space tug really wouldn't have a whole lot of uses, other than to change the orbit of communications satellites or for a long-term/large-scale Lunar program

A whole lot of uses for a robotic space tug:
- transport satellite from minimal orbit to higher orbit
- restore decaying satellite orbits
- de-orbit "dead" satellites, junk,
- re-supply satellites with consumables
- repair satellites (module replacement)
- transport bulk supplies to/from a supply depot
- temporary satellite on demand (mounts equipment from depot)
- mount satellite onto orbital-slot-sharing platform

At many tens of millions of dollars per satellite, I doubt we're anywhere near saturating of demand for cheaper satellites, so I don't see that Say's Law applies.

Where satellites provide an economic base to build on, robotic space tugs provide infrastructure that can make new applications economical:

- human exploration vehicle components boosted to high orbit and supplied by the depot - eg a Mars ship
- more science and space resource probes, boosted from LEO, supplied from the depot
- near-earth telerobotic asteroid mining, supplied by tug, production hauled back by tug.
- lunar mining - O2, metals - transport from Low Lunar Orbit to high orbit or L5 depot
- on-orbit telerobotic manufacturing and assembly at a tug depot
- solar power satellites - Zubrin's critical cost analysis of these assumed direct launch to GEO (as well as some other questionable assumptions, IMO), which the tug changes

Unless you believe none of those things could have value that would be in demand, again, Say's Law isn't applicable.

BWhite · 2004-06-22 16:10:08

:laugh:
Smurf, Bill is quite intelligent and talented.
I think you may misunderstand this conversation between us, we've been having it for a while (in various forms, on various topics). We all play a part, and Bill invariably plays his all too well. :;):
Ok, but his arguments (not his thoughts) will get him no where. He is saying basically that the end of Earth is near, we need Mars. How many times have people in history told that before?
Basically he is speaking like a cult leader: "The end is near, the others are blind sheep, they can't understand, we are better, follow me."

“I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.”

Physicist Stephen Hawking speaking to Britain’s Daily Telegraph Newspaper as reported by Reuters on October 15, 2001.

= = =

The world probably will not end anytime soon.

Yet if we expand into space, our species might well become extiction-proof.

= = =

I agree that whoever settles space first is NOT assured to shape future human culture as it spreads across the solar sytem.

But you cannot win if you don't play.

clark · 2004-06-22 16:20:22

I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars. -Walt Whitman

Yet if we expand into space, our species might well become extiction-proof.

Might, might not. Super nova, Bill. Big crunch. Or simply, ourselves. Better get Cobra and his space marines.

I agree that whoever settles space first is NOT assured to shape future human culture as it spreads across the solar sytem.
But you cannot win if you don't play.

The browning of America comes to mind. What wins?

BWhite · 2004-06-22 16:26:03

I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars. -Walt Whitman

Walt Whitman is a dangerous man. Hypergolic literature.

Why trust anyone who writes poetry (and songs) to himself?

= = =

Wait, maybe I am thinkikng of Emerson!

The American "soul" is defined by the open road and today the only open roads are "out there" right?

clark · 2004-06-22 16:27:13

Why trust anyone who writes poetry (and songs) to himself?

:laugh:

Hitch your wagon to a star. - Emerson.

clark · 2004-06-22 16:43:59

The American "soul" is defined by the open road and today the only open roads are "out there" right?

I think you want Twain for this...

An Englishman is a person who does things because they have been done before. An American is a person who does things because they haven't been done before.
-Mark Twain

:laugh:

Bill White · 2004-06-22 20:11:04

The American "soul" is defined by the open road and today the only open roads are "out there" right?
I think you want Twain for this...
An Englishman is a person who does things because they have been done before. An American is a person who does things because they haven't been done before.
-Mark Twain
:laugh:

Why thank you. My point is now clear.

Whitman, Emerson and Twain lose their context when America has no new challenges to conquer. Thus, America loses its "soul" - - using that word as metaphor rather than in any scientific sense - - one we decide there are no frontiers to conquer.

Zubrin gets it, except that being an engineer, rather than a literature major, he tends to mix up his metaphors in a most delightful manner.

clark · 2004-06-23 08:35:47

Whitman, Emerson and Twain lose their context when America has no new challenges to conquer. Thus, America loses its "soul" - - using that word as metaphor rather than in any scientific sense - - one we decide there are no frontiers to conquer.

Ah, but who decided space is that ultimate and final fronteir?

Wouldn't science be the "ultimate" fronteir? Space is just a place and a waiting destination, it dosen't lead to anything in and of itself. It's elbow room, not progress.

You don't need to colonize the stars to do science, so why go?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 08:42:52

Wouldn't science be the "ultimate" fronteir? Space is just a place and a waiting destination, it dosen't lead to anything in and of itself. It's elbow room, not progress.

Abstracts such as 'science' are not frontiers, at least in the sense relevant here. Frontiers are physical places, real destinations with potential to one day become settled by people looking to the next one. Frontiers may serve to further science, but that is not the extent of their usefulness.

Frontiers 'speak' to people on a deep, almost primal level. 'Science' doesn't inspire that way, it can't.

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 08:50:14

“I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.”
Physicist Stephen Hawking speaking to Britain’s Daily Telegraph Newspaper as reported by Reuters on October 15, 2001.
= = =
The world probably will not end anytime soon.
Yet if we expand into space, our species might well become extiction-proof.
= = =
I agree that whoever settles space first is NOT assured to shape future human culture as it spreads across the solar sytem.
But you cannot win if you don't play.

The 1000 year plan is ok. But now going somewhere more then orbit with what we have is like crossing the ocean on a raft.

Not saying its impossible, as is crossing the ocean on a raft is possible and proven. Just you know, it will be a flag and footprint mission. I'm not interested in those. Its great but I can think better ways of spending that money.

I don't think Stephen Hawking is interested in flag and footprint missions either.

As soon as someone is persueing the von Neumann machines plan, then I'm interested. I don't even follow the rover missions, nor does the apollo project interest me and the ISS can burn in the atmosphere.

I don't think we are going to expand in space as long as the government has to pay for everything.

And Stephen Hawking said in the next 1000 years, a 1000 years is a long time.

So basically I'm putting all me money on robotics and nothing else.

clark · 2004-06-23 08:54:10

Frontiers are physical places, real destinations with potential to one day become settled by people looking to the next one.

The frontier is the unknown. The conquest of the frontier is to make it known. Which is why people end up moving on.

Places provide an immideate gratification, but physical-tangible things are not neccessarily the entire embodiment of what is the frontier. There is the frontier of the mind, body and soul. Or, in the ultimate sense, our understanding of the universe and ourselves.

We spread out to create elbow room because we have a propensity to kill one another the closer together we all are.

Frontiers 'speak' to people on a deep, almost primal level. 'Science' doesn't inspire that way, it can't.

What are you looking for on the frontier? Is it the place, or what the place represents? If it is the latter, then you don't need a physical place to achieve the same results. :;):

Grypd · 2004-06-23 08:54:44

Cobra commander is correct science does advance mankind but for most people they dont understand or realise it.

But the applications of science they do understand when they get a smaller phone with more gadgets etc, And one of the greatest applications of science is the lunar landings.

People need a goal they need to feel that they and there country is heading somewhere. I dont think that we have that at the moment. So what do we do, stay on earth and im sure eventually stagnate or let another future culture do what we said was too expensive, too hard. Or do we take the step that allows us to break the bonds of being a single planet civilisation.

quess what has my vote.

BWhite · 2004-06-23 08:55:22

“I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.”
Physicist Stephen Hawking speaking to Britain’s Daily Telegraph Newspaper as reported by Reuters on October 15, 2001.
= = =
The world probably will not end anytime soon.
Yet if we expand into space, our species might well become extiction-proof.
= = =
I agree that whoever settles space first is NOT assured to shape future human culture as it spreads across the solar sytem.
But you cannot win if you don't play.
The 1000 year plan is ok. But now going somewhere more then orbit with what we have is like crossing the ocean on a raft.
Not saying its impossible, as is crossing the ocean on a raft is possible and proven. Just you know, it will be a flag and footprint mission. I'm not interested in those. Its great but I can think better ways of spending that money.
I don't think Stephen Hawking is interested in flag and footprint missions either.
As soon as someone is persueing the von Neumann machines plan, then I'm interested. I don't even follow the rover missions, nor does the apollo project interest me and the ISS can burn in the atmosphere.
I don't think we are going to expand in space as long as the government has to pay for everything.
And Stephen Hawking said in the next 1000 years, a 1000 years is a long time.
So basically I'm putting all me money on robotics and nothing else.

Ahhh. . .

Spreading into space is like a Dutch auction. Improved technology including improved robotics will continually lower the relative cost over time.

Someone will "bid first" to found a settlement. That bidder is not assured of the ability to shape the future demographics of the solar system yet they will have a head start.

And yes, it will need non-taxpayer funding since its a fantasy to think that any Terran government will be able to maintian political control over a Mars settlement.

Not with guys like Cobra itching to re-play 1776 and kick some UN fanny!

smurf975 · 2004-06-23 08:56:03

You don't need to colonize the stars to do science, so why go?

However Mars, Venus, the asteroids and other planets mean more resources and more money if exploited and this means more money and cheaper building materials for science. Also better science instruments and no limitations due to zero gravity manufacturing and no one to harm in deep space when things go wrong.

But still I say not now but in the future yes.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 08:56:24

And Stephen Hawking said in the next 1000 years, a 1000 years is a long time.
So basically I'm putting all me money on robotics and nothing else.

The problem is that no one is going to jump in and develop all the wonderful technology we need to fulfill a plan such as you mentioned. It's gradual, evolutionary. We almost have to go in little rockets with dry food in boxes and live in metal cans before we can go in fusion liners and live in cities built for us by self-replicating robots. Kind of a paradox, we don't have the tech to properly settle the planet, and we won't until we get there and try.

If we wait, we may lose the chance.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-06-22 14:55:21

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#152 2004-06-22 14:59:37

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#153 2004-06-22 15:03:07

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#154 2004-06-22 15:06:09

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#155 2004-06-22 15:24:16

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#156 2004-06-22 15:28:40

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#157 2004-06-22 15:46:36

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#158 2004-06-22 15:56:16

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#159 2004-06-22 15:59:01

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#160 2004-06-22 16:02:31

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#161 2004-06-22 16:07:32

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#162 2004-06-22 16:10:08

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#163 2004-06-22 16:20:22

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#164 2004-06-22 16:26:03

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#165 2004-06-22 16:27:13

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#166 2004-06-22 16:43:59

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#167 2004-06-22 20:11:04

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#168 2004-06-23 08:35:47

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#169 2004-06-23 08:42:52

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#170 2004-06-23 08:50:14

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#171 2004-06-23 08:54:10

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#172 2004-06-23 08:54:44

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#173 2004-06-23 08:55:22

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#174 2004-06-23 08:56:03

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

#175 2004-06-23 08:56:24

Re: The Case Against Mars - Why Mars is not a good target!

Board footer