Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

Austin Stanley · 2005-02-09 03:52:47

I have to disagree with Martin_Tristar here, your line of reasoning simply doesn't make sense. For at least the next 50 years, and quite possibly for much longer than that, Mars is going to be of no more strategic resource than Antartica, and substantialy harder to get to at that. Honestly, the planet is millions of miles away and has as much surface area as Earth. It is of little importance if the US, UN, Russia, China, France, Japan, or any other country "claims" it as there own. It's not like they will able to enforce a claim on the entire planet or that Mars is going to run out of room anytime soon.

What RobS says makes more sense. He who pays the bills will make the major decisions with the locals having a great deal of autonomy. Making it a bone of geo-poltical contention simply doesn't make sense. It's not a strategic military outpost by anymeans, and it won't be of signifigant economic utility for a long time to come. Certianly much great science will come from it, but that has always been freely shared.

As for the theory of the US (or some other Mars coloniser) using there "critical" mass to hinder other groups from developing mars, this is absurd. As I pointed out before Mar's distance makes developing that so called "critical mass" a event that will happen in the distant future. And even then, the shear vastness of space and mars makes any attempt to monopolise it's resources futile. What are they going to do, shoot down the landing crafts? Invade your colony with tanks and inflantry? Impractical if not clearly impossible. And clearly any nation that can send a mission to mars can also develope nuclear weapons and delivery systems along with the MAD deterent that implies to hostile options.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-09 06:11:56

On the issue of the UN since it is in America and we have the largest force available to call on, we have set our selves up to be the police force of the world. I agree that sometimes the UN votes against us just to hinder the US from being more dominate at times. But IMO we have no need to conquer and hold any lands where we go into on the UN or those that live there's behalf.

Grypd · 2005-02-09 17:01:18

Sure, it's not the UN's fault for anything. After all, they don't have a resolution for God sakes so what can they do? Somebody must have misplaced that box of resolutions. Yes, maybe that's why the UN is so impotent.
And lets not actually blame the government of Sudan for supporting the murder of hundreds of thousands when we all surely know it's the security councils fault. Everything is their fault, don't you know?
The UN's main concern is keeping the USA from becoming too powerful when it should be to defend the poor and helpless.

well you have to understand how the UN was designed it really is for all intents a talking shop. Its agencies like WHO have specific jobs but the actual enforcement of any resolution is done by the security council.

We have to remember that to deal with the Sudan as it should be done we would need military force on the ground. The Sudanese region we need to get to Darfur is at the opposite end of country from the sea. So we would have to come from another direction. So the military would have to have extremely long supply lines to be able to operate there.

What does this mean well frankly no country really wants to have to get involved in trying to use military force to sort out the problems. Sudan is a major supplier to the Chinese in oil etc so they would be unlikely to support armed conflict and would veto any form of sanctions. The US and UK are both stretched dealing with Iraq. So who would really want to get involved into a really expensive and probably heavy casualties police action. So what they all want is a peaceful diplomatic solution. Not me though I want those brutal goverment sponsored murderers and almost as bad Rebels properly dealt with but it is not going to happen.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-09 19:57:53

Austin Stanley,

I like your comments the best, you have a simplistic world you live in, with today'ds issues globally for resources and the ever increasing needs will force governments to make harder decisions on the lifestyle for their people. This is the main reason for going after the resources in space not the costs for those resources but the quality and quantity of resources on these bodies.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-09 20:03:02

"you have a simplistic world you live in"

If you like his comments, you might try not running him down by labeling him as naieve.

Austin Stanley · 2005-02-09 23:11:24

with today'ds issues globally for resources and the ever increasing needs will force governments to make harder decisions on the lifestyle for their people.

I won't disagree with this point, but I do not belive that it supports your asertation that Mars will eventualy become some sort of strategic battleground in the future. With the advent of nuclear weapons and MAD those "hard decisions" pretty much exclude hostile options.

This is the main reason for going after the resources in space not the costs for those resources but the quality and quantity of resources on these bodies.

This point is self contradictory. The cost of accesing resources is intresicly linked to their quality and quantity. If it costs more to get to them then they are worth, then the resources are worthless. And this will doubtless be the case on Mars for a long time to come.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-10 04:00:09

Firstly to GCNRevenger,

I wasn't meaning he was naieve but he lives in a world that the ruthless and greed of humanity isn't around. If we don't fix these structure issues before we could have space-based warfare and the best group wins the whole pot. (all the colonies, outposts and planetary bodies )

Austin Stanley

The advent of Nuclear Weapons under MAD only applies on earth, in order to use the same preventative methods in space doesn't work. Nuclear Weapons don't act the same in space as they do on earth.

Also automated defensive platforms could be used to protect the access to the Mars colonies and the moons of Mars could be used as longer range weapons platforms.

That is why the United States has space command and military strategists diversing strategies to command threats from and within orbit space and beyond. Every other country would have the same type of command structure or department.

I am not saying this would happen but that is why it would be better to have all participants for inter-planetary voyages must go under one framework controlled through regulations across the world. ( for beyond the earth-moon territory space ) This would remove the issues occurring in the first place and also bold the various teams and governments for humanity.

FInally, About costs >

The limited resources will keep increaing in price and reduce in volume for earth-based resources and the resources in space will evaluation become less expensive and more accessible, and that is what i was meaning the governments then will want those resources for their people in space on colonies and for earth based people.

Dook · 2005-02-10 05:00:00

You gotta lay off the sci-fi channel man. Take a walk. Get back to reality.

"Nuclear weapons don't act the same in space as they do on earth" Uhh, and you know this from what research? Must have been a Star Trek episode I missed.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 05:58:39

"I wasn't meaning he was naieve but he lives in a world that the ruthless and greed of humanity isn't around."

...Which means in english that you think that he is naieve. A non-apology is worse then no apology.

And nuclear weapons will still be quite lethal to anything that isn't at least partially hardend on the surface of either the Moon or Mars.

hubricide · 2005-02-10 09:25:39

You gotta lay off the sci-fi channel man. Take a walk. Get back to reality.
"Nuclear weapons don't act the same in space as they do on earth" Uhh, and you know this from what research? Must have been a Star Trek episode I missed.

There's no air in space, for one. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it superheats the air, which spreads out and burns things. I imagine that in space a nuclear bomb would unleash mounds of radiation, which you probably wouldn't want bouncing into you, but I don't think there would be much else besides a bright flash of light. I'm not sure what would happen to the bomb casing itself.. Would it simply remain intact? What force would exist to break it apart? Oh yeah, and if the bomb casing remained intact, I guess you wouldn't see any light after all...

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 09:30:26

A nuclear bomb heats the air because of the intense pulse of thermal energy. The glass at ground zero at Trinity Site wasn't made by the hot air, it was made from the radiant heat from the blast.

In space, there would be no air to make a shockwave, that is true, but there is still the vast amount of radiant heat that is released in a very short time scale, which is even worse in space since there is no air to absorb it.

A nuclear blast would simply melt anything and everything that isn't hardend... which is basically everything without a meter or two of dirt on top... There is also the pesky problem of the EMP effect, which would destroy all electronics not specifically intended to handle such a shock effect.

The lethal effect radius would probobly be smaller then on Earth, but it would still be quite lethal unless you are underground.

Austin Stanley · 2005-02-10 14:15:12

If we don't fix these structure issues before we could have space-based warfare and the best group wins the whole pot. (all the colonies, outposts and planetary bodies )

If I am being simple minded here, it's because the problem truely is not that complex. We won't have any war in space for the same reason the Russians never invaded West Germany. Such a conflict would quickly escalate to more widespread warfare, eventualy culminating with nuclear weapons and widspread destruction on both sides. If China (for example) decides to shoot down one of Frances space assets (landing craft or whatever), France isn't simply going to shrug their shoulders and ignore it, they would strike back at any Chinese targets they could reach in retaliation. The Chinese then strike back, and on and on it goes untill there is nothing left of France and China.

The thing is that both China and France know this is the likely outcome of events, and so don't do it. The risk of nuclear war is not worth the marginal gain of a monopoly in space. This kind of Brinkmanship is certianly scarry, but it is what has prevented nuclear war for some 50 years now, and will on into the future.

The advent of Nuclear Weapons under MAD only applies on earth, in order to use the same preventative methods in space doesn't work. Nuclear Weapons don't act the same in space as they do on earth.

No, MAD (Mutualy Assured Destruction) as a policy works on all fronts. As I pointed out before, France isn't going to treat an attack on one of it's space colonies any diffrently then it would an attack on one of it's colonies still here on Earth (I think they still have a couple), or an attack on it's homeland itself. For quite some time the US and NATO were hoplessly outmatched in Europe, but with the bomb to back them up, the Russians never invaded because of the danger of escalating to a nuclear war which would mean MAD, where nobody wins.

Also automated defensive platforms could be used to protect the access to the Mars colonies and the moons of Mars could be used as longer range weapons platforms.

Man and I though "Star Wars" and the SSI (Strategic Space Inative) was a form of stupidity that Regan had only inflicted the US with. Such a system is impractical and extreamly expensive here on Earth. Building one all the way out on Mars is even MORE impractical and would be so hidoulsy expensensive as to be completely impossible.

That is why the United States has space command and military strategists diversing strategies to command threats from and within orbit space and beyond. Every other country would have the same type of command structure or department.

Currently our "space command" sits back at Cheyenne mountain keeping an eye out for a nuclear attack which hopefully will never come. If one does, there only response is to launch a retalitory strike of there own. Thats it. The US doesn't have any means of enforcing anykind of stragic control of space. Indeed, the Russians were the last ones with ANY kind of space arsenal, all of which have left service a long time ago, and probably wouldn't have worked that well in the first place.

I am not saying this would happen but that is why it would be better to have all participants for inter-planetary voyages must go under one framework controlled through regulations across the world. ( for beyond the earth-moon territory space ) This would remove the issues occurring in the first place and also bold the various teams and governments for humanity.

I'm all for a joint effort. I'm just saying we should follow the "golden rule" he who pays the gold, makes the rules. I wouldn't be very happy if the US had to put up all the dough for a mission, but someone else got to call the shots.

The limited resources will keep increaing in price and reduce in volume for earth-based resources and the resources in space will evaluation become less expensive and more accessible, and that is what i was meaning the governments then will want those resources for their people in space on colonies and for earth based people.

This point (if in fact we ever do reach it), is a long ways off. Developement of Mars or anyother extra-terrestial body is going to take 50+ years, no matter what. For some of the stuff you talk about (meaningfull colonies, Space defense platforms considerbly longer than that).

here's no air in space, for one. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it superheats the air, which spreads out and burns things. I imagine that in space a nuclear bomb would unleash mounds of radiation, which you probably wouldn't want bouncing into you, but I don't think there would be much else besides a bright flash of light. I'm not sure what would happen to the bomb casing itself.. Would it simply remain intact? What force would exist to break it apart? Oh yeah, and if the bomb casing remained intact, I guess you wouldn't see any light after all...

What!?! When a nuclear bomb explodes intense radiation is emmited in all directions. The bomb caseing (if it somehow survived the conventional explosions that triggered the bomb), would most certianly be vaporised in the blast. The amount and kind of radiation (which is ALOT and mainly thermal) does not change wherever a bomb is exploded. Actualy heat (being the increased motion of atoms) is not actualy produced by the reaction (only EM and neutron radiation is), but is rather a result of the intense radiation coming into contact with some matter. The casing (beign at ground zero) is going to absourb alot). Without air to absourb the radiation, the effects would propigated inverse square law, and damage could probably be expected at great distances. Heck, even if the casing somehow did survive, so much radiation is released in the visible spectrum, you could probably see it THROUGH the casing.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 14:54:16

Sounds about right on all counts. As long as space outposts belong to an Earthly country, then it stands to reason that Earthly countries could react to such an attack with one of their own on Earth.

A nuclear weapon (as in, the complete warhead with casing) will produce a massive thermal energy burst, which would incinerate anything nearby on the ground or in space.

Manchu4 · 2005-02-10 16:31:54

Ultimately, a nation state like the USA will decide to send an exploration team to Mars. They can not claim it no more than we claimed the moon back in the 60's and 70's when we visited there. Until man on this planet gets beyond killing each other we are trapped on good old planet Earth. A combined effort by mankind to settle Mars will succeed. But we aren't there yet.

Dook · 2005-02-10 17:41:15

When we went to the moon in the 60's we planted the flag of the USA and over these many years it is still the only flag flying there. Also we are probably the only ones who have the ability to return. I think if we wanted to we could certainly make a claim on it and legally we would be more entitled to it than anyone else.

Humankind doesn't need to wait for the low life losers to stop killing before we move on. It certainly didn't stop us from going to the moon in the 60's.

And I really don't think we need anyone else to go to mars and back. The US can do it at anytime. We just need leadership.

Commodore · 2005-02-10 17:47:57

I'm surprized the Russians never sent up a rover whose purpose was to plant a flag and take a picture.

Euler · 2005-02-10 17:49:54

You can't just go and claim the whole moon, especially when no one has been there in over 30 years. I think that Antarctica should set the precedents for ownership of objects in space.

Dook · 2005-02-10 17:57:36

We can claim the whole moon for ourselves. No one else has shown any interest in it. But the way to do it, if we wanted, would be to not claim it but simply build a base there and use it as we wish and since no one else can get there it's essentially ours.

Grypd · 2005-02-10 17:57:53

I'm surprized the Russians never sent up a rover whose purpose was to plant a flag and take a picture.

The Russians did send up rovers actually they sent two. These are the lunokhod(moonwalker) series of rovers and these very succesful class of rovers actually travelled more distance than the current NASA ones on Mars.

Lunokhod 1 (1970) traveled about 10500 metres and produced a lot of pictures and took a lot of soil samples
Lunokhod 2 (1973) travelled over 23km before it was stopped by apparent internal failure. It also sampled soils and provided a lot of pictures.

Actually Lunokhod 2 had a flag and also an icon of Lenin on it.

Saying this these two rovers where one of the best successes for the Soviet era of space research.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 18:07:21

I doubt that anyone could claim the ENTIRE Moon or Mars, but I imagine that a country with a manned presence could claim a portion of it... just like how a counries' territorial waters extend a certain distance from land.

Oh, and I bet there are some CCCP flags along with the Soviet lunar probes.

I think that America alone without a terribly large investment could set up shop on the Moon to mine He3 and precious metals. What we would need is a heavy lift rocket, a true "no really!" RLV space shuttle, and a commitment to stay.

This talk of "but we have to have a big global group hug before we can settle Mars" is silly, we need no such thing. What is needed is advanced propulsion technology and at least some orbital infrastructure for that to happen.

Grypd · 2005-02-10 18:12:32

Allright the Moon treaty if countries and organisations actually adhere to it does not allow ownership. But I would arque that using the resources to develop your program is bettering mankind and also that your base has a right to be left alone and not be hindered with and so for a reasonable area around too. And if anyone has a problem they can come and look to see what you are doing which also is a tenet of the treaty.

And a lot of countries are showing an interest in the Moon look at India or Japan or China all have plans to send probes and eventually people. When it comes down to Mars there will be spots on Mars that have more interest to the countries that go there than other spots. It should really be a case of first come first served. The country that has a base on the Martian moons will have a great spaceport to service there ships and whoever gets the Mons Olympus a great place to build a lunar Beanstalk. The problem comes down to administration and legality of these bases. And to allow all to share in the enterprise. It would hardly be ethical if as an example the Usa builds an elevator on Mons Olympus but does not allow the chinese to use it for a cost obviously and vice versa. It is when this does not happen that conflict will occur and frankly it is more likely to be in a court room than anywhere else.

The problems I have with the Moon treaty is it really appears to be a step towards a similar too law of the sea treaty which if it follows that route has basically stopped further development of the Earths oceans. And my hope is that with the general ignoring of the outer space treaty is that we go for a workable agreement to operate in space and allow semi ownership rights for areas that a country or corporation is actually working on. Or at least giving a right to mine and extract what you need.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 18:19:02

I think it depends somewhat on how valuble the stuff being dug up is. If it is very valuble, then I don't think we would figure it wasn't worth the legal trouble like mining the ocean bed.

I could see the WTO getting in on any space commerce disagreements between nations.

Mining the ocean would be sufficently difficult that unless what you were digging up were REALLY valuble, it really might be easier to get it from space instead.

Side note: Has anybody come up with a good way to mine ocean-floor Clathrates?

Grypd · 2005-02-10 18:27:34

They did plan to use claws from ships able to pick up 50 to 60 tons at a time and very tough ROVs to look and guide and also to use what is called dredge mining but the problem was though it was financially very worthwhile it had a big but. The but is that every attempt or idea floated (no pun intended) is shut down as all the small nations want there share and it becomes financially a problem. Add to that the harrasment of the green lobbie and enviromentalists and it becomes a no goer.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-10 18:49:52

If natural gas and polymer feedstock supplies become a problem, I should hope that the clathrate miners would tell Tuvalu & Co to go to heck, and have armed escorts in case Greenpeace shows up.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-10 18:59:17

Dook,

When the SSI or " Star Wars " Scientific teams discussed in " layman's terms what would happen to nuclear weapons in space, they discussed the radiation, flash , the casing would be destroyed, but the destructive blast power of Nuclear Weapons wouldn't exist like here on earth, the weapons need a object to be in the immediate blast area to be effected.

I work in science reality, we don't have plasma based weapons but do have laser and rail gun based weapons, secondly the star trek " torpedo launcher is just a rail gun firing high explosive nuclear shells like a field artillery or ship-based artillery. All currently developed technology, not futuristic technology but not used to create these variation weapons and we don't want that.

In all these technologies it requires a class of vessels still in drawing boards and not on physical reality. It requires the development of power systems and drive systems for these types of vessels that could also assist in the colonization and settlement of Mars and Beyond.

I only said " that we need a framework that does work for humanity but not against humanity in space and the application of resources for the next generations to come", If we don't have that framework in place at the beginning then it will take a time to recreate it in the future and may cost more that if we started at the beginning and worked forward.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-02-09 03:52:47

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#27 2005-02-09 06:11:56

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#28 2005-02-09 17:01:18

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#29 2005-02-09 19:57:53

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#30 2005-02-09 20:03:02

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#31 2005-02-09 23:11:24

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#32 2005-02-10 04:00:09

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#33 2005-02-10 05:00:00

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#34 2005-02-10 05:58:39

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#35 2005-02-10 09:25:39

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#36 2005-02-10 09:30:26

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#37 2005-02-10 14:15:12

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#38 2005-02-10 14:54:16

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#39 2005-02-10 16:31:54

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#40 2005-02-10 17:41:15

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#41 2005-02-10 17:47:57

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#42 2005-02-10 17:49:54

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#43 2005-02-10 17:57:36

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#44 2005-02-10 17:57:53

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#45 2005-02-10 18:07:21

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#46 2005-02-10 18:12:32

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#47 2005-02-10 18:19:02

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#48 2005-02-10 18:27:34

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#49 2005-02-10 18:49:52

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

#50 2005-02-10 18:59:17

Re: Article about colonizing Mars - Does someone remember this?

Board footer