Palomar

Mundaka · 2005-11-15 17:25:04

Editing out private PMs and other assorted drama, for the love of God, don't let internet crap get to you. Thanks, and have a nice day. - Josh

Podcast subject ideas:
1. How New Mars is more like New Free Chat these days.

Well, your complaint includes me -- or would if I weren't on your ignore list -- and you're right: I haven't had much to say lately, its just one of those slumps people sometimes get in; however, I had no idea you felt as you do about Free Chat. Sorry about that -- its where I tend to hang (after all, I'm no scientist) and I tend to discuss politics. Sorry, I don't know what to say -- except that if there weren't unpleasant feelings before, there are now.

3. Pseudoscientists: Do they prefer Fruit Loops or Cocoa Puffs for breakfast?

Well, I did get offered a job building rockets, and I am pretty close to finishing an engineering degree, so rather than talk about what I don't know (science) or pissing off the old timers with free chat politics, maybe you are right and I should show some interest in Mars by building rockets -- instead of talking about them.

clark · 2005-11-16 06:33:56

for all you know I'm an 80 year old stalker in spaghetti straps and a diaper.)

Dude, it's like you know me or something.

So in lieu of politcal this-and-that chit-chat, we have melodrama theater?

Take it from a veteran of the "ignore" feature, it ain't so bad. The funny thing is we can have an entire conversation about the subject in question, and the subject would see a thread complely devoid of posts... well, sort of. She could always click each individual post.

The only way around the ignore feature, as far as i can tell, is if another user in "good standing" quotes you within the body of their text. Of course, my sensitive trucker friend with a newly reattached digit (do we really want our rocket scientists being the ones who have to have their bits and pieces reattached?), I believe you have just made things remarkably worse.

I'm an old hand at this.

So lemme see... the Mods should get a flurry of PM's. Deletions and locking of threads will occur, and somehow, someway, I will end up being asked to shut up, or get threatened with another ban.

I don't need a one eyed hobo to see this future.

Now, if we happened to be discussing this over a beer (or three) I might mention that the lack of response, after such persistence, denotes what is often called, "a hint". Take it.

Or don't. But please, post updates. It will be the only way I can get banned.

Now group hug everyone!

Rxke · 2005-11-16 09:17:10

Hmmm... If Cindy doesn't do an "un-ignore," this will be a rather one-way discussion :?

So I will take the liberty of trying to explain her views re: privateers (In the hope i get it completely wrong, and she gets so mad and actually pipes in... :twisted: )

Most of us are pro private space endeavours, thinking/hoping it will lead to the democratizing of spaceflight, but there's a downside to private spaceflight: it has to make money (duuuuuh)... And there's not much money to be made in science.
Money can be made in advertising, hauling fat multi-millionairs into orbit, harvesting stuff from celestial bodies etc...

And as far as I (think) I understand her viewpoints, she is convinced 99% of the people into privateering don't do it because they want to explore etc, but because they want to make money. Irregardless of the long-term results.
And she has a point of course. For instance, the fourth space tourist is a steenkin' rich guy that wants to wear a Gundam (or other Japanese Anime, I forgot) suit in space, even to me that's too decadent... The three former tourists all had either links with spaceflight or were scientifically interested etc... This guy is a 'fat tourist'
'So what,' you say, 'he makes things happen,' yes and no. Imagine he's the first in a line of weirdo's... Great inspiration for the kids that thought "spaceman=cool".

I am pro commercialisation, BTW, but I see her point.
I -once again- encourage anyone that didn't read RobS's very realistic novel about settling Mars to do so. The people there run a commercial operation in order to be able to explore and expand their settlement. And it's not easy to find the middle ground. And they're Marsians first, entrepeneurs second.

And sure: NASA is 'pure', but then again... They have also launched semi-tourists (senators etc) They have tested cola's in orbit... Oh, and they have stood still since 1976 re: manned missions.
They did some cool unmanned stuff, though, but that's besides the point.

clark · 2005-11-16 11:32:01

The anti-privateer viewpoint for space is understandable, but largely misplaced dissatisfaction with the general state of hyper-commercialization and consumerism.

Those in the anti-space-exploitation camp largely see the commercialization of space, in any form, as evidence of mankind’s inability to find new alternatives to the historical experience. In essence, it is the mark of failure that our species/culture is incapable of advancing forward towards the “final frontier” in anything but the same manner in which we have always moved humanity forward; i.e., the utilization of greed, desire, and self-aggrandizement for the sake of personal benefit, and not societal good.

Space-exploitation is not about traveling to the heavens in celebration of mankind’s ultimate achievement. It is merely an opportunity to expand and celebrate individual egos and advance the personal wealth of individuals. Space and all the points of light above become not destinations, but proverbial beans to count on one side or the other of the accountant’s ledger. The excitement, the thrill, the sheer hope of what might be when the best and brightest that humanity can muster venture forth with vision is subsumed by a mockery of space as one more joy-ride, one more roller coaster ride with all the seriousness and importance of cotton-candy confection.

And there in lies the final culmination of what space-exploitation truly means. It means this noble dream of civilization expansion, of colonization, of traveling the stars; it is nothing more than just a way to make a buck. The Moon and Mars no longer become places of new starts, but of profit and loss statements all based on who owns what and how much- long before any human foot sets down on those distant bodies.

Now some willingly accept the price of admission to our bold new future. Pragmatists. Realists. Cynics. And of course those who have an idea on making a buck off someone else’s dream (in America, we call them “Entrepreneur’s”). In the name of expediency they clamor for the familiar, because after all, if we “sell” it, some will “buy” it, and somehow we are closer to the noble dream that was the genesis of it all. Yet, by doing so, the noble dream is undermined, and the very thing that engenders this devotion and sheer romantic madness flees in the distance.

Ask yourself, when you look at the stars and the planets up above, do you think, “I” want to own that? Most true space advocates, even those that are on the side of space exploitation, would answer no. Yet space exploitation, in essence, is about owning the shared dream of space. It reduces the dream from the quality of ideas and individuals, to the quantity of amassed fortunes for the price of admission.

Let me present this in a condensed version though, to mull over:

When a child asks you how they can travel to the stars, would you rather tell them, “by being the best or brightest,” or “by being rich enough to afford it.”?

The motivation of one engenders the pursuit of personal betterment and individual improvement. The other merely reduces the motivation to one of simple math that does nothing to actually push an individual towards a more meaningful state.

However, in a moment of full disclosure, seeing that I am far from being the best, and am woefully missing the mark on being the brightest, I know my only shot at the brass ring is if I can buy my ticket. 

Josh Cryer · 2005-11-16 13:30:13

Ahh, I get it now. Mundaka was annoyed by something Cindy said in her signature. That was so confusing! I literally sat here dumbfounded as to why posters would have to be all melodramatic again (seems like a cycle, every month or so something happens). So anyway, I'm editing out all the bad stuff (private PMs, etc), and locking this thead. I'm not deleting it because clark and Rxke make good points. Anyone complains, oh well, I'm ignoring it.

BWhite · 2005-11-16 14:47:37

Testing the limits; pushing the envelope

Josh Cryer · 2005-11-16 16:07:44

Heheh, it says locked but we can still reply, cool. I always unlocked before replying to a locked thread, didn't know I could just click.

BWhite · 2005-11-16 16:12:16

Heheh, it says locked but we can still reply, cool. I always unlocked before replying to a locked thread, didn't know I could just click.

Dude, you have da' power.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-15 17:25:04

Re: Palomar

#2 2005-11-16 06:33:56

Re: Palomar

#3 2005-11-16 09:17:10

Re: Palomar

#4 2005-11-16 11:32:01

Re: Palomar

#5 2005-11-16 13:30:13

Re: Palomar

#6 2005-11-16 14:47:37

Re: Palomar

#7 2005-11-16 16:07:44

Re: Palomar

#8 2005-11-16 16:12:16

Re: Palomar

Board footer