You are not logged in.
Now hear me out cause I'm not saying it isn't important. But let's say you want to make an irreversible beginning to a colonization as soon as possible. Why not send your astronauts, cosmonauts, taikonauts, or who have you to Mars in a spacecraft that doesn't spin? 6 months in zero g with an exercise regimen designed to keep your crew healthy enough for Mars would be a great way to make your supposed round trip a one way voyage. After they've been there a while bring up the dangers of returning to earth after 6 months in zero g, a while in Martian gravity, and another 6 months in zero g. Regrettably you say the only safe thing to do is leave them on Mars and resupply them from time to time which is of course expensive, but for a little more you could send them the equipment needed to make themselves self sufficient. Of course these spacecraft would need to be manned too, and since time is of the essence they're also going to have to take a one way trip to Mars. Pick out the original crew members well so that they won't mind being stuck on Mars and can be told that this is the real plan too. Meanwhile the government that signed on for a limited exploration program is stuck footing the bill for an ever expanding Mars colony lest it look cruel and technologoically impotent as it leaves its brave explorers to starve to death on an alien world.
Offline
That wouldn't work. The real problem for setting up a Mars colony, is lack of commitment to do that by the government and not the lack of volunteers for going to Mars. It the lack of government commitment to the cause of colonization of Mars that the problem.
Larry,
Offline
But once the original crew is there most government's couldn't leave them to starve, and similarly given how scared folks are nowadays if the nation's space agency said returning the crew to earth was dangerous to the crew's health the public wouldn't let that happen either. They'd both be unwittingly and unintentionally funding a colonization program that they never would otherwise.
Offline
You don't understand. Most governments on the Earth aren't prepared to make that kind of commitment to long term astronauts on Mars, so your argument on how to do it won't happen. You have to have people go to Mars in the first place, which will have to be a government financed and directed plan or it won't happen. If it going to be the government project and there not prepared for such a long term commitment, then they won't do it.
To argue contrary to that, is waste of time, because it won't happen that way.
Larry,
Offline
Several problems:
1. Six months of zero gee is not a show-stopper; people have spent 9 months or more on ISS.
2. It won't do much good to lie and say they can't come back in a free society where the science that says they can can be freely published. The lie would just be exposed.
3. The notion that Mars colonization is so urgent that it should be founded on a lie strikes me as bizarre. If the purpose of colonization is to make a better society--and these dreams of colonization are almost always partially utopian in nature, so that is usually the case--then one cannot found a better society on a lie. The ends do not justify the means; that is a basic ethical principle, and tinkering with it produces ethical lapses more serious than the one proposed.
-- RobS
Offline
I like the idea...
for a novel that is.
It probably wouldn't work in reality, but in a novel yes. You could make Mars a society of liars, cheaters, swindlers, and scoundrels. It would all be based on that one lie told centuries ago...
How tragic...
Offline
Several problems:
1. Six months of zero gee is not a show-stopper; people have spent 9 months or more on ISS.
But it's not just six months. You'e also got a long term stay on Mars with its low gravity combined with a return 6 month zero-g voyage.
2. It won't do much good to lie and say they can't come back in a free society where the science that says they can can be freely published. The lie would just be exposed.
Man made global warming seems to be a good example of this no matter what you believe. If you believe humans are causing it then you're wondering how everywhere else cannot see it. If oyu don't believe humans are causing it you're wondering how something with little to know evidence can cause all kinds of legislation. Folks disagree on science all the time.
3. The notion that Mars colonization is so urgent that it should be founded on a lie strikes me as bizarre.
For me personally I'd like to see it in my lifetime. In a larger picture there's all kinds of stuff I don't want supported that gets done for as far as I can see little or no reason. Why shouldn't something I support benefit from this for once?
If the purpose of colonization is to make a better society--and these dreams of colonization are almost always partially utopian in nature, so that is usually the case--then one cannot found a better society on a lie.
I wouldn't mind a better society, but I've no faith in a manmade utopia.
The ends do not justify the means; that is a basic ethical principle, and tinkering with it produces ethical lapses more serious than the one proposed.
So you can't decide to do something once without having to do it over and over again? Do we only have free will the first time we ever face a certain scenario, and then afterwards we must always follow the same course?
Offline
But it's not just six months. You'e also got a long term stay on Mars with its low gravity combined with a return 6 month zero-g voyage.
You may have a point here. I have generally assumed that the Martian surface is fine for humans where gravity is concerned. Walking around in spacesuits outside will give your bones almost as much weight as terrestrial gravity and the stiffness of the suits will give your muscles a good workout. Inside, weights in pockets could help keep bones strong. But I admit that these are assumptions, not scientific conclusions.
Man made global warming seems to be a good example of this no matter what you believe. If you believe humans are causing it then you're wondering how everywhere else cannot see it. If oyu don't believe humans are causing it you're wondering how something with little to know evidence can cause all kinds of legislation. Folks disagree on science all the time.
I wonder whether this is a good comparison, due to the complex nature of climatic systems, compared to, for example, bone density data (which is easy to gather and interpret).
So you can't decide to do something once without having to do it over and over again? Do we only have free will the first time we ever face a certain scenario, and then afterwards we must always follow the same course?
Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you are saying.
-- RobS
Offline
^Basically it seems like some folks are saying if this plan were to be tried and work it'd doom anyone living on Mars to being liars, thieves, scoundrels, and so on. I don't find that to be valid.
Offline