Posts by Josh Cryer

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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.

Josh Cryer · Water on Mars

There is a lot of confusion going on about the presence of water ice on Mars. Especially about the composition of the ice caps. I'm going to try to show how we can deduce that the north polar residual cap is probably, with a large degree of certainity, composed of water ice.

When I talk about ?residual caps? I'm basically talking about the size of the ice caps when it's summer time (but it always varies; basically residual means the ?smallest? size the caps get).

Following are some nice pictures and links to sites which help show this. All I'm doing is compiling the information for others to understand (INAPS- I'm Not A Professional Scientist). All italic emphasis is mine (bold seemed a bit strong).

"Cottage Cheese" Texture on the Martian North Polar Cap in Summer

full image

This picture shows a cottage cheese-like texture on the surface of a part of the residual--summertime--north polar cap.
The north polar cap surface is mostly covered by pits, cracks, small bumps and knobs. In this image, the cap surface appears bright and the floors of pits look dark. Based upon observations made by the Mariner 9 and Viking orbiters in the 1970s, the north polar residual cap is thought to contain mostly water ice because its summertime temperature is usually near the freezing point of water and water vapor was observed by the Vikings to be coming off the cap during summer. The south residual cap is different---its temperatures in summer remain cold enough to freeze carbon dioxide, and very little to no water vapor has been observed to come off the south cap in summer.
The pits that have developed on the north polar cap surface are closely-spaced relative to the very different depressions in the south polar cap. The pits are estimated from the length of shadows cast in them to be less than about 2 meters (5.5 feet) deep. These pits probably develop slowly over thousands of years of successive spring and summer seasons.

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

Observation: The north polar residual cap has a higher temperature than the south in the summer. Also, water vapour was observed by the Viking probes.

We need to dig a little more! That's just a page about some pretty picture. Well, let's do that very thing.

The following is an image of recent temperature profiles of the south polar cap, this image is updated daily with about a week lag due to processing constraints, and it's summer in the southern hemisphere right now, but the data (along with some other data) will serve the purpose for determining the chemical composition of the north polar cap.

vamp0_SP-Day_Temp(!Uo!NC).png

Source: http://emma.la.asu.edu/daily.html

This is a daytime reading of the south polar ice cap, as you can see, it's relatively cold there, around -120 to -90 where the residual part lies, but peaking to -15 near the edges of the region. (It's colder in in the north polar region -120, by comparasion- but remember, it's winter there right now.)

I can't find a summer reading of the north polar cap, and I don't quite know how to read the PDS data related to it (when am I ever going to have time to learn this stuff?), but it's not really required to show that the north polar cap consists primarily of water ice, as I'll show in a momment.

North polar topography of Mars
smith.snow.fig1A.jpg

This image is of the north residual polar cap on Mars. Red denotes the actual residual cap, while blue shows the extent of icey layers (it could be said, with simplicity, that red is the summer cap, and blue is the winter cap). As you can see, the north polar cap is quite large! And it barely receeds during the summer, unlike, as you'll see, the south polar cap.

Sorth polar topography of Mars
smith.snow.fig1B.jpg

Isn't that amazing? The south residual cap is four times smaller than the north, yet its winter-time extent is almost twice that!

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

Now that we know that the north polar residual cap is made of water ice (or some magical carbon dioxide that somehow manages to not evaporate in the summer), how much is it?

There was a study done in 98, right after the first MOLA scans were done, that wanted to find out just that. In it the scientists came to the conclusion that, ?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. 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.?

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

We know that the north polar cap does not receed as dramatically as the south during the summer, and that its residual size is similar to its full extent, so it should be clear that the north polar cap is made primarily of water ice. If it was carbon dioxide it would have the same properties as the south polar cap.

I don't know how to read the Viking data, but if I did I would certainly provide evidence of water vapour over the north polar cap during the summer.

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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?

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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.

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

?The Sun.? -Sax

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

I see exactly where you're coming from. Abolishing laws (I still believe a framework is necessary, but we wouldn't have to call them laws, since they would be scrutinized constantly- unlike current laws) is what I believe in. The hard part is ?enforcing? anti-propaganda because as you can see, it happens when people pool together and have similar ideas. Segregation would not have happened if people, lawmakers especially, didn't come to an awful consensus about who deserved what. And that's scary! Imagine how many people must have been involved in the process! It's disgusting! No one, no one, spoke out. It makes me cringe to think of it. Representative Democracies do not afford the people enough power, and it should be done away with.

I have a problem for you: How do we insure this relatively lawless society the protection from others in it from mindlessly starting their own ?anti-socitey?? Or do we just not care?

I think that's where human rights laws come in.

If people were able to look on the poor and the middle class with open eyes, free from the subjective nonsense imposed by them from mindless propaganda, whether that propaganda be from government, the media, corporations, or their own family, they might try to change the system to help them, thus ending the class struggle you speak of.

I think this is going to happen, within our lifetimes. The beauty of capitalistic propaganda is that it efficiently drives the machine which promotes it. Once high level technology gets into the hands of the masses, supply will magically outweigh demand, and we will have no choice but to work together and drop our biases.

But I don't see compassionate people looking down on the ?poor? to help them. It can often be observed that the rich give to the poor as propaganda. ?Look at me, I'm not a monopolistic company, I give to the poor.?

Do you know anything about GNU? It's a software movement that Linux is based around. Basically it's an End User License Agreement that tells the user (using copyright against itself) that they ?must keep the source code free.? That's all there is to it. Without that rule, that law, there would be no system.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

Marajuana is bad, people who smoke it must be punished!
Communists are bad, communists must be punished severely!
Socialists are bad, socialists should be exiled!

Well, this is propaganda. I mean, there is no ?law? against communism, or socialism (indeed, the constutional framework could facilitate either system- though we would still be a republic), but schools teach that these things are ?evil? without defining the actual political theories (or by adding bias- for example, ?Communism is bad because you're forced to do such and such and you don't get to do what you want?).

We get this kind of propaganda everywhere. Keep in mind that America may be a ?free country,? however, it's very Church-inclined. And we use laws to spread propaganda.

(Edit: A really, really, good example of ?laws and propaganda? were segregation laws back in the early 1900's. Did you know black people were in the Senate in the 1800's? I bet you didn't. See how people take their beliefs and make what they believe ?law?? Even without a framework for laws, it would still happen. So I think it would be wise to define human rights laws first, just so things don't get out of hand in the future.)

This means that laws necessarily fufill the very intentions they set out to undo! What does a murder do? Well, he oppresses the victim! How can you fix oppression with more oppression?

Well, I think the problem lies in laws that people accept which are inherently ?laws for some.? The kind of laws that make no sense outside of a specific political belief. Those are the ones that are really oppressive.

Laws exist as a framework for punishment, and that punishment is basically an ?incentive? not to break the laws. Laws are created by people who think they can determine what is right and what is wrong. Well, obviously most things are highly subjective. Like your marijuana example.

A religiously inclined political system might ban marijuana (and spread propaganda), whereas scientifically inclined politics might define security measures so you don't overdose and so on and so forth (and too spread propaganda). An ideal society wouldn't have laws about it at all, indeed, people would be allowed to decide for themselves.

Class struggle wouldn't happen without [hatred and prejudice].

I say otherwise. Hatred and prejudice wouldn't happen without class struggle. If we all had equality of conditions we wouldn't have to justify the poverty striken or defend the rich and privileged.

Tell me Alexander, how am I to love my fellow human when he has a nice house, car, and a beautiful wife, when I'm nursing blisters on my hands after working a 16 hour work day?

Josh Cryer · Exploration to Settlement Creation

Yeah, that's why I asked if it was a hemisphere or a zone (hemisphere defined by height), a zone would take lots less material than a true hemisphere.

Josh Cryer · Human missions

[...] 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.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

Laws are oppressive / repressive, what-have-you, but they are the embodiment of security.

Most laws are common sense, the perculiar ones are the ones that insure class power; the ones that are ?laws for some? and not ?laws for all.?

I don't really like the idea of a mandated judicial system. Indeed, I don't even like the idea for mandated anything, but without defining a ?framework,? people will look at me like a freaking maniac (does my concession make me a hypocrite?). The only thing I can do is try to convince people that the framework is (or should be) as transparent as possible (in order to facilitate full growth potential). Instead of there existing ?police officers,? for example, I call them SAOs and explain their duties, just to put the function into context. Need there be laws for civil functions? No, not really, but laws sure do help us with consistancy. Well, the organizational laws, at least.

The only laws that should exist are human rights laws (the free speech stuff), the rest should be up to specific communities.

(Though the idea of having a harem of young nymphets is inticing... maybe this ?law thing? isn't so good after all... )

Your belief that laws are the cause of the vast majority of crimes: well, with all due respect, laws are about oppression. A law saying you cannot murder oppresses your murderous tendencies (ever-so-slight they may be), a law saying you cannot jaywalk oppresses your natural desire to take shortcuts (;)), but you get my drift.

Now that it's obvious laws are about oppression, it's not hard to see that laws that protect classes from lower classes (most notably: property laws) are oppressive, what follows then; is class struggle. And that is the root of most crime. Just to put everything into context. (I really don't think ?accepting your emotions in a mature way? is going to fill an empty stomach, you know?)

And, just for fun, I'll remind you that no society could exist without ?laws.? Any negative learning process instills ?laws? in our minds. Have you ever touched a hot burner twice? Probably not, because you freaking new better the second time. The laws of the senses, perhaps?

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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.

Josh Cryer · Exploration to Settlement Creation

Hey RobS, how'd you come to your numbers? (Kevlar weight and such. And is your dome a perfect hemisphere, or a zone?)

I love all of your ideas, though I'm skeptical about how you're going to ship 15k tonnes of soil, we really ought to start working on Sax's soil alchemy.

Josh Cryer · Human missions

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.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

Scientists working on the Manhattan Project during world war 2 didn't know if the A-Bomb would be a limited explosion, or if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere and burn off all of the atmosphere.

A few scientists whimsically believed that the whole atmosphere would burn off because of it, however, it was known almost certainly that there was enough nitrogen in the atmosphere to keep a chain reaction from happening. I've heard this story before, but the majority of scientists knew it would happen the way it did (though they miscalculated on how bright it would be). This is a fairly good point, however, it should be noted that ?trial and error? isn't about using knowledge, but rather gaining.

Why do you assume that we can coexsist with knowledge when all science and technology has been used to further out ability to destroy?

Don't you? I mean, c'mon, we're scaring ourselves to death here. One person builds a nuclear bomb, the other builds a defense shield, the other builds satellites to shoot down other satellites. Don't you find it ironic that our own fear of technology makes creating destructive technology economical? Granted, the more destructive technology that's out there, the ?higher? the chances that we'll use it, but really, it doesn't get much worse than nuclear, so as long as the technoligies are fighting against themselves we'll be okay (which is a scary statement, I know).

[...] a prolaterian revolution (the kind Marx really envisoned) is an eventuallity if current global trends continue unabated.

So you can talk about eventualities but I can't? No fair.

I agree, though, and even though you don't want to admit it, anarchists are good for the cause.

There isn't a limitless supply of <insert luxury here>.

Wouldn't it be quite a boring world where everyone wanted <insert luxury here>? People who are self actualized don't need <insert luxury here>. Indeed, they're out there doing things they want, not worrying about where they live. I suspect this future world will be full of travelers.

[...] you're telling me things like this are the result of class struggle [?]

Most of those, yes, indeed. I'm not a psychologist, but it doesn't take an idiot to realize those classifications are of very troubled people. Let me guess, you think an arsonist gets his psychotic urges out of no where? (Same goes for all of what you listed, I suspect?) I beg to differ, as there was something related to his upbringing that triggered that behavior. (I do realize that many arsonists and such are actually from middle-upper class households, however, had their parents not been working their asses off out of greed or necessity, maybe they could have paid more attention to them.)

And even if there were ?bigger? problems, all you would do is get the assistance of other SAOs. You would have a daily log and things of that nature, but the job should be quite relaxing. (I should have addressed this, though, because I don't think the future is a utopia in that respect, there will still be problems. There will undoubtedly be murders and such, and I didn't mean to say that there wouldn't, but you even have to admit they would be less.)

But just because a machine does something, that does not neccessarily make that something inherently superior to what a human can do.

Well, I wouldn't let it if I didn't think it was superior.

And I would think that a machine could handle way more input than a human. Humans mostly go by visual interpretation of what they're working on, however, a machine could monitor blood pressure, pulse rate, and even pain killers (all operations could, in effect, be waking-operations- scary thought, I know).

Self-actualization is an on-going process- you can never "reach" it in the classic sense- like reaching a state of nirvana, it comes and goes depending.

Self-actualization is just realizing ones full potential. And you would think that when you realize your full potential you stop relying on material things to make you happy. This is getting deep, though, and since I'm admittely not self-actualized, I won't go further.

Self-actualization is not a requirement for life.

I think it is when your whole life was about trying to survive on an 10 hour work day with bills out the wazoo. How would you feel if you woke up one day and your life had changed completely? You had no work to go to (indeed, the job of shoving dynamite in the ground to dig up iron ore was replaced by an AI just weeks earlier, yesterday you finally got off your vacation and you realize that there's nothing really you can do- the coming weeks you're going to be taking a course on how to operate the AI... but you're going to have a lot more time on your hands than you realize...).

I have something, why should I risk that something for someone else if there is no direct benefit to me?

You're assuming that you'd be taking more risk than you would be taking using the equipment yourself, that's pretty egotistical. The point is, if no one is using your equipment, it's stagnating, it's doing nothing. Indeed, there is a limit to how much one person (or a group of people) can exploit N ammount of resources. Unless everything is controlled by AI, but then it would get to that point where you'd wonder who was the master of who.

With regard to your bank scenerio. The bank assumes no risk in the classic sense of the word. The bank needs your money simply because it doesn't have enough cash floating around. They pay you back only as an incentive. Not because you should be ?rewarded? for the risk. At least, no bank have I went to have I had to sign a disclaimer stating that my money ?risked? being lost forever.

[...] in the model you suggest, it is flat out stupid.

How long can you go exploiting your own resources? The ?incentive? is helping out your neighbor. The question really should be; why wouldn't you once you reached your full potential?

I'm annoyed that we're arguing this since the point should be moot once technology is plentiful. It's about either forcing demand (like you're attemtping to do), or making anti-proprietor laws. The problem really is about convincing people that what they have isn't what they are. Self-actualization, anyone?

I mean, really clark, what are you going to do with all of those resources when someone else is bound to share theirs? You have no hope of forcing demand in the future.

How am I confused?

Well, obviously you think you take more risk lending out your equipment than you would keeping it for yourself, and you think you should be rewarded for that. Tell you what, I'll buy your equipment off of you, use it for a few days, and sell it back to you at a higher price (since I replaced that worn out actuator a few days before), sound fair?

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

So you are taking a very (VERY) small subset of human history and basing your predictions on that... I understand how you derive your optimitic view, I just question the legitmacy of the process.

Well, yeah, and I wholeheartedly admit that. But it's not just based on our releatively recent technological advancement (considering the history of the human race), we're talking about millennia of humans using tools and such. It really is our nature to apply knowledge in a practical and useful way (which is the raw definition of technology).

Anyway, you remarked that I have an optimistic view. Well, Hellen Keller said, ?No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit.?

Your previous posts seemed to neglect this rather important account to the point where it wasn't even addressed. What makes you think that we WON'T blow ourselves to kingdom come?

Good point. I'm faced with this problem every day I wake up. Especially lately. However, it would be pure melancholy to think of knowledge as a thing that destroys itself, if one has the knowledge to blow themselves up, one must also have the knowledge to know that they're capable of blowing themselves up. I'm not going to discredit the human race because they have the knowledge to blow themselves up! I'm going to assume that they can coexist with knowledge, because if they can't, there is nothing to discuss.

Welcome to communism.

Another ?inevetiblity??

However, how do you provide a limitless supply of education? Limitless supply of housing? Limitless supply of opportunity?

Exactly what about is it about ?limitless resources? that impedes any of this? I think you fail to recognize that once conditions are equal for all, most of the ?problems? our society face are easily fixed.

You were disgusted by the prospect of ?randomly selected bureaucrats,? however, I think you give these ?bureaucrats? too much power and not enough credit. The first thing you have to understand is that most problems faced by these ?bureaucrats? are quite easy to asses and fix, and are necessarily rare in a society where equality of conditions exists.

For example, most problems faced by police officers are domestic, that is, they can be solved by a neighbor or a friend just as easily as a police officer. The problems that require more force are caused by class struggle not civil disputes.

Another example is that most medical problems are primarily the cause of poor conditions. Your body needs a well rounded diet and proper hygiene, and when it doesn't your body stops functioning normally. Work related injuries would all but disappear since work would no longer be an issue in the classic sense of the word.

The main problem with these ?bureaucratic? civil servants is that many people would inaccurately argue that laws stating: ?One person in so many and such should be a civil servant of such and such for however long such and such? do not allow us enough freedom. I disagree, as we have these kinds of laws anyway, but in the case of our current situation people are civil servants not because they want to, but because they have to to survive. I would rather live in a world where people who did their jobs did them because they wanted to, not because they were in a constant struggle to survive.

Anyway, not to say that I am an expert in AI, but in the future I believe operations will be done by an AI surgeon (aided by nenotechnology). God knows I wouldn't trust a person to give me a heart transplant when an AI could do it with unheard of precision.

We will simply move up another rung of Maslow's ladder of needs and find another "valuable commodity", won't we?

Who's the one discussing the nature of humanity now? Am I to argue that what you're saying is preposterous and not based on reality and so and so forth? I won't of course. What more can one get once they reach self actualization?

You'd have to reach self actualization in a highly technoligcal world, or you'd explode in a ball of insanity.

Like I said, ?the tyrrany of the individual over itself is pretty severe.?

The demand is extremely high, and luckily the supply is nearly infinite- however, no one owns the means to PRODUCE air or control air, so the economic model does not apply. Now, on mars, that is NOT the case.

Right, air has so much of a supply that demand is irrelevant. Or rather, there is so much air no one can control it to force demand upon someone. Not to stray from my point, did you know that DeBeers secures diamond resources in order to stimulate demand? Without this regulation diamonds would be worthless. (In the mid 90's DeBeers started tagging their diamonds, since they saw flawless artifical diamond production on the horizon.)

Wouldn't it follow that the economic model would not apply to a future civilization where technology was just as plentiful? You have a choice, force demand, or make it law that all have equality of conditions.

I give you all I have for the possibility that I might get nothing in return, while you get something for nothing with the chance of making something for yourself....BAD model. Try again.

Proudhon argues [t]ools and capital, land and labor, considered individually and abstractly, are not, literally speaking, productive. The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a tool, or the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then, that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own effort,--and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he literally receives something for nothing.

Maybe you got it backwards? I mean, how is that textile manufacturing facility helping anyone if someone isn't out there extracting carbon and hydrogen to make UHMWPE or whatever?

Isn't it better for ME to use those resources for something so I have TWICE as much as when I started?

Right, of course you could be out there doing something with it, but if that was your prerogative you wouldn't even be considering sharing your capital. The point of sharing capital is to keep it in a constant state of production, perhaps you can go on forever acquiring more and more yourself, but growth would be more distributed (and thus better) had everyone who had the capablity to use your capital used it for their own means.

Are you a lonely person? Is it really all about you?

You have no chance of ever inceasing the value of your money, and you have a chance (however small it might be) that you will lose your resources.

I don't gamble.

But anyway, you confuse proprietor with producer, so your arguments are invalid.

Did you ever get around to reading some Proudhon?

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

I can accept etrapolating from current events, but you should make that clear from the get go. You might also want to limit how far you extrapolate- look how the world has changed in the last 10 years, look how it has changed in the last 25, the last 50, the last 100...

There's no way to actually determine what could happen. There could be a World War, this is why I don't put dates or specific time scales. That would be arrogance. If I list to you the progress in pure technology that has happened in the past 20 or so years, then maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. And even then, it would be subjective and we'd be having this ridiculous argument all over again. This is why I simply generalize it down to ?inevetiblity.?

Given that civiliztion has risen and fallen numerous time, and each time technology somehow manages to exist, it's clear to me that this is going to happen. Yes, we could blow ourselves up, and yes, it could take a thousand years to get back where we are now, but it's hard for me to sit here and accept this stupid ideal that technology hasn't a chance (in any given timeline) of progressing to a point where supply and demand is no longer a question.

Yet your whole argument is predicated on humanity continuing this progress, which you admit is an unknown. So are you now admiting that your argument is based on an unknown (continuing technological progress)?

It's not unknown that humanity strives to survive through acquiring knowledge and resources. Indeed, if we did not do that we would probably be extinct by now. The ?unknown? is whether or not we can keep from blowing ourselves up or avoid any natural disastors in our current state of progress. I think most arguments about the future have to take that into account, indeed, any scientific prediction has to say, ?this could happen because of this if this doesn't happen.?

I am listening, but by your own admission you are not conveying your message as clearly as you would like.

Ironic, how I am studying AI and language is the most important aspect of it.

Class struggle is the result of disparity of distribution of resources- so it still is a resource issue.

Well, the resources are there, the problem is who owns the resources. Once (if it ever happens and the world doesn't blow itself up and such and such, since you seem to require this disclaimer) supply is larger than demand, there would be no class struggle; indeed, civilization would have much less risk to decline.

And as long as we have the resources (not just energy) for maintaing our current standard of living, we will be okay.

No, we won't, because our current standard of living relies on classes. We can't hope to reach a technological plateu without first abolishing class through equality of conditions. This means laws stating that what technology is should be free for all.

There is a bit more to economics than psychology. There is and always will be a demand for resources- as long as we have a dependance for life on any given resource.

Well, economics rely on the psychology of someone to, say, buy the newest stuff, and such and such. A car can last for years, but we're constantly compelled to buy newer things, and etc. This is a flaw in the structure of economics, because it relies on that one human thing called greed. What happens, then, when (if we don't blow ourselves up and the world becomes a distopia, etc etc) we reach a level where resources are indeed easy to come by? Economics will have to restructure themselves real quick.

And I ask you, what is the demand for air given that its supply is limitless (on the scale of things)?

I take the risk of providing you X, you might not be able to give me anything back.

You'd be unwise if you didn't make sure X was returnable.

When I was a kid my neighbor let me borrow his fence layer, it took us about a day to dig a few acres of fence posts, but he watched, just to insure that things were done right.

Why should I give you resources (X) if all I get in return is the loss of those resources for an unknown amount of time with no reward for the risk?

Those resources you provide are capital. I use your capital and return it, then I have capital. Why wouldn't you? Think about it, you're just securing resources and depleting distribution, your gain is nothing... however, if you were to build a city on this simple modification, you have unlimited growth potential.

Risk without reward = biologicaly stupid.

Heheh, what biology class have you been taking? I like this metaphor, though. If you look at multicellular organisms you'll see this organizational structure that maintains even resource distribution. Depending on the cells job, it gets a certain ammount of protien, oxygen, etc. Indeed, multicellular organisms are the perfect way to see a society with equality of conditions.

I like to think of capitalism as cancer, since cancer is a multicellular organism that reproduces and consumes resources (protiens and oxygen) endlessly, until of course it kills itself.

A declining civilization is much like a cancerous organism.

(Oh, BTW, shame on you from making me post from work!! :angry:)

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

In a universe of infinite possibilites, all things are possible.

Is this some kind of solipsistic statement?

Might I suggest that you label your philosphical constructs as such, so those who wish to discuss realistic ideas may do so without impining on your freedom to espouse your own personal world view.

My view is too generalized, it's not like I'm saying ?this will happen.? I'm saying ?this will happen if this doesn't happen.? You're telling me that, ?this won't happen if something else happens.? You're just repeating my words without acknowledging that what I've stated will happen if there is nothing to stop it.

So if we lose that "spirit", it isn't inevitable. Isn't it arrogant to assume that we will always have this "spirit of discovery"?

My god man, stop putting words in my mouth. Did you even read what I said? ?Nothing can delay human progress short of a huge disastor.?

I never claimed that we would always be in a state of discovery. And I would think that if we felt one day there was nothing else to discover, that would be a huge disastor.

There is nothing inevitable about the human future because it is all an unknown.

Yes, it's unknown what will happen tomorrow in any given event. However, it's not unknown that computer chips are doubling in processing speed every 18 months. It's not unknown that manufacturing processes are making mass production cheap and easy. It's not unknown that technology worth $2000 less than 10 years ago is now worth pocket change. The only thing that is unknown is whether or not this progress can continue. And given that I've covered that, my statement is still valid.

If we don't see it your way, then the problem is obviously with us, becuase after all, what you believe and think is far superior to what we might think or believe and you just can't be bothered to show ignorant we all are, and how superior you are.

More like: I'm tired of this nonsense, since you're obviously not listening to what I'm saying and rather making assumptions about the implied.

Civilizations tend to fall when their available resources decline-

As long as we have energy we have the resources we need. Civilizations decline because of class struggle.

You suggest philosphers, try out world production systems, rise of the state system, macro-economics. Economics gives good insight into philosphy.

Oh, I have, economics were required in collage. But economics are based on psychology. Take away the demand for resources and the whole system collaspes, this is why a system like Proudhon suggests will be the only way we can co-exist with each other without destroying ourselves.

I give you X now so I get X+something later.

Right. You give me X so you get X+something later. That's why resources eventually ?deplete,? you take resources from me without losing resources from yourself. How about you let me borrow X so that I can have something and give you X back? Then I can give X to someone else, and they can do the same thing. Of course, this is inherently wrong from a psychological perspective, because we're greedy fools.

You keep trying.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

[...] what exactly was the time line you were expecting such an advance to happen?

Well, it's arguably realizable in our lifetimes, but I can't say for sure, and I'm not professing that I can.

If cheap and easy is a prerequesite, aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself in planning or even theorizing on Mars development?

I'm not getting ahead of myself. I'm suggesting controversial ideas, ones which cause heated debates where ever they're brought up. My inablity to express these ideas properly causes confusion, though.

What if the manufacture of habitats and machinery never becomes cheap and/or easy? What then?

What if the sun goes supernova, what then? Nothing can delay human progress short of a huge disastor. Look at history, Alexandria was a society rich in technology, but it was wiped out in one single blow; millennia of scientific discovery gone. However, timescales are irrelevant to inevitability.

In my opinion, it is arrogance to assume any "inevitability", especially when refrencing the human race.

Yes, it's arrogance to say, ?Within this certain period of time we will have flying cars and such and such, it is undoubtely inevitable!? however, it's not arrogant to say, ?This certian vision of our future is inevitable given that we don't destroy ourselves first.? As long as the human spirit of discovery exists there is a certian inevitability to the human race.

There is nothing absurd about finding fault with grand statements with little or no evidence to support the claim.

Grand though they may be, they're honest. If I have to provide evidence then there is no way to convince you. If you can't see around you how humanity is in a constant state of discovery, indeed, if you can't accept that that is truely the nature of being human, then it would be a waste of time to try to convince you. Civilization rises and falls, that is a given; it's absurd to imply that civilization has no hope of preventing a forseeable decline. Two millennia ago, maybe, but not now.

No, colonization is about economics. It increases the amount of available resources to reduce the amount of external and internal pressure caused by current resource depletion.

I don't think so. Colonization decreases the ammount of available local resources in order to provide capital. The question is whether or not that capital stays local or not, and if it can or not. A colony that relies on its point of origin when it has enough local resources is a failed colony, in my opinion.

[...] any endevour to Mars will ultimetly fail in this regard because it will not increase resources here on Earth- it will take away resources.

The resources taken from Earth can be returned eventually once the infrastrcture is in place, but that point is moot. It's not like American colonists had to take all of England to America when they went. They took a boat and some tools. Most of what they needed, they had. They had their capital.

The primary reason was for a return on investment because it costs so bloody much to start a colony. This relationship is not practical for Earth-Mars colonization, so what is the motivation for people to invest in a Mars colony?

Um, American pioneers colonized because they wanted a new way of life, trade was a natural result of that, but it's not like trade is necessary as long as local resources are plentiful enough. This ?relationship? is illusionary. Motivation comes from curiousity.

We can live anywhere given the proper technology, so what's your point? It sounds like your friend had fun- but why should I, or anyone else pay for you or Mars lovers to "go have fun"?

Pfft, I never suggested that ?you? pay for a trip to Mars for people to ?go have fun.? And I'm under the impression that my friend had family in Antarctia, I'll have to ask him about that. The technology will be in place eventually, and if it happens within my lifetime, unlike you, I will be totally willing to share.

Employing this argument as the basis for Human to Mars colonization is grade-school material at best.

Perhaps, but there are obviously more reasons than just because we can. I use that argument because so often have we done things simply because we could. Indeed, I don't see people struggling to colonize Mars because of some sort of disastor, nor do I see colonization happening because of some commerically funded mission.

Why did we colonize America? Yes, there were economic benefits, and all that folderol, but really, American pioneers were out there exploiting resources themselves, not really relying much on any outside capital. Yes, shoemakers and clothes makers and so on in Eroupe benefited initally, but hey, those things were only temporary. The same infrastrcture quickly built up in America. And not because the technology didn't exist, but because the technology was horded and kept centralized. This resulted in reinvention in the Americas.

If it is "because it is there", then there is no pressing need to do it right now- so what's the rush?

Who said there was a rush?

And when do we get to look forward to this magic world of self-reproducing technology?

Within our lifetimes, perhaps. Hey, I'm contributing to the cause. You list ridiculous visions that aren't based on current technology, however, my suggestions really are based on current technology.

When will we have AI? Another 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years? I read up on AI, and people still aren't sure.

Some still don't see AI ever being possible. We can't predict what will happen. However, from my experience I feel it's not so difficult to realize as it seems. The underlying principles are there, all that is needed now is more study in the field of ontology.

Companies derive legitmacy and protection from governments- this version of the world is not likely.

Exactly what world are you living in? Company A can sue Individual B for acquiring technology they own rights on, this is reality. Even if Individual B merely reinvented the technology.

Technology is a product, just like a can of pepsi or a car- without approriate means for reward, there will be little innovation. More than likely there will simply be a balance between the two situations you have presented.

I see more of the former situation existing initally.

If everything you offer is unrealistic, why should I bother discussing this any further?

Well, it's unrealistic now, and unrealistic tomorrow, but it's not unrealistic because the technology doesn't exist, only the infrastrcture to create it cheaply doesn't exist. There is a difference. You keep innaccurately implying that we have no technology with regard to space, but I ask you, when we finally do go to space (or are we never going to go to space either?), how will we go about it?

Even if we had the passive shielding, things like reentry, saftey in space, back-up systems, integration of multiple systems, redundancy checks, emergency evac procedures, etc... it's not that easy.

You really don't think we're going to do all of this silly experimentation do you? Think about it this way: when we design a new airplane we do all sorts of structural tests, even preflight tests in a wind tunnel (though this has recently been surpased by superior fully computerized tests) but the actual technology doesn't get tested until someone gets into it and flies off into the unknown. This is how it always is with regard to new technology.

Reentry, we've had what, over 100 Space Shuttle flights? I think we've figured that out.

Safty in space? ... There are only two American incidences I can think of, not that bad really.

Back-up systems, required, but not really hard to implement.

Integrations of multiple systems. This is trivial and is often ignored. We have so many silly people designing different parts, it's a wonder anything works together. Systems should be decentralized.

BTW, I was referring to the use of static shielding instead of passive, I was saying that ?it's plain and simple that there is a bureaucratic hand intervening in the research of passive shielding.? (Static shielding requires more reasearch in particle physics, and if you want I can look up a paper that used static shielding to promote the building of a new particle accelerator.) I can see how you thought I was inferring that ?it was that easy.? Sorry.

It's 20 year old technology that hasn't been seriously developed.

Tee hee, the last big development I remember is them using antiquated solid rocket boosters (that were outside of the AMES research center, if I recall correctly) because the ones they had weren't useable.

[...]There is no such thing as a routine shuttle launch. It's a space ship, not a lawn mower.

True enough. We launch vehicles with 4 seperate parts that are held together with tight bolts and explosives. At a certian point these explosives blow up and the parts fall off. It's beautiful technology, really. Too bad the whole ship isn't self contained like the X-33.

[...] I wonder how useful [venzotriazole] is in low pressure, high radiation, and extreme temp differentials.

Not sure, but since it can be sprayed on to transparent surfaces, it's not hard to imagine it being on the inside surface of an environment. Plus, it takes an organic solevent to disolve it. Varients are used on the Space Shuttle windows.

All of that has to be reproduced on Mars if it is to be self-sufficent and survive. And the cost to do it insane and there isn't enough of a justification (now) to do it.

You weren't really seeing the comparasion I was making. The materials to make plasitc can be derived from a few sources, the materials and manpower needed to build a stadium are huge if you factor in everything. Factor in everything that goes to the making of a composite plastic structure and factor in everything that goes into the building of a gigantic multi-material structure and you will see where I'm coming from. Manpower is very expensive.

It's cheaper, by far, than building a stadium.

Actually, I'm sure I will. What good is textile stock, or textile companies if there are "self-reproducing technology that creates anything (as long as it obeys the laws of physiscs)?"

In 18 years? Tee hee, who's the one being unrealistic now, friend? I can see 3D printing being totally easy by then, indeed, specific parts should be pretty easy to acquire, but the actual building process would still be left up to us.

Long term exsposure to increased amounts of solar radiation and cosmic radiation.

Passive shielding. Search for the keywords, ?passive shielding? in your favorite search engine and you'll see a plethora of websites related to the technology.

Long term exsposure to zero-g, and low-g.

You're not going to be able to have any solutions for this until you try them out. This technology doesn't exist yet in any useable sense, but the concepts are still there. First; exercise, it's been shown to lower bone loss, and indeed, we'd probably be adapting NASA exercise routines whichever way we go. Second, centrifugal force drives. Again, conceptual, much like that airplane I discussed earlier. But hey, if we have the means to design that airplane, it should follow that we have the means to design a space craft with a centrifugal force drive. Your excuse is, ?we can't do this and that because we've never done it before.?

Reliable closed system bio-regenerative systems.

The previous problem does have semi-[workable]solution, but this one doesn't. This does require more research and it's admittely the most important requirement. Our current technology solution would be in hydroponics and soy production, with waste reclaimation facilities, this stuff is being worked on as we speak.

On sight construction in low g and in vaccum.

This is dooable. We have the space suite technology, that's for sure.

Psychological stress due to confinement during space exploration/living.

There has not been an incident of any psychological problems as far as I know (feel free to prove me otherwise), people are more resiliant than most realize.

Problem solving critical systems malfunctions without mission control support/guidance.

You can't rely on Mission Control when there is a 20 minute delay, so naturally the systems will have to be designed with this in mind.

Practical low-g exploration suit.

Again, we have space suit experience. And hey, the first space suit was tested flawlessly. This could lead to more manuverable suites, though. The multi-jointed one they have (but have not actually used in practice) is quite cool.

No, we will reach a point of either technological stagnation, or we will continue to grow.

Growth relies on demand, once demand is no longer an issue, growth can't continue in the ?typical? sense of the word.

The exciting question is whether or not government can force demand upon us once technology has the quality of being as plentiful as air.

Your utopian ideal is not based in reality, it is based on an interpertation of future events that may or may not happen. You are not talking about the "inevitable", you're not even talking about the probable.

Basically what I'm suggesting is inevitable, is manufacture without requiring current manufacturing support infrastructures. Machines can potentionally create a manufactured product from raw material. Is this a hard enough eventuality to accept?

If you can't accept that trival concept, then I think I'm wasting my time, as your predjuices are getting in your way.

Josh Cryer · Martian Politics and Economy

Isn't is presumptuous to assume that we would have habitats and machinery that is both cheap and easy to manufacture for Mars?

Well, I may have implied that the first scientific expeditions to Mars would have that capablity, and that wasn't intended. The discussion was about colonization, I felt, so I wasn't speaking out of line. The context should be: Once we decide to colonize Mars, we will have habitats and machinery that are cheap and easy to manufacture locally. Indeed, that is a prerequisite for colonization!

In my opinion, it's ignorance to not see the obvious inevitability of the human race. Technology is in a constant state of growth, and short of us blowing ourselves up, we will undoubtedly reach a point where technology and the results of technology are as plentiful as air itself. To have to address this simple inevitability is absurd!

That said, I will lay out my arguments.

Previous experience of colonization centered on extracting raw materials and shipping them back to the colonizing country to finish into a manufactured good, which was needed / wanted by those who orignially extracted the raw material- this will NEVER be the case for Mars- it will thus always lack the neccessary capital to create the finished manufactured goods.

This is flawed. Colonization is primarily about self-sustenance. The primary reason for returning resources to the place where the colony originated from was wealth (not because there was an utter requirement), sure, there were instances where resources were returned to the point of origin for manufacture (because technology was centralized); though it should be noted that there was plenty of manufacturing (and innovation) within and because of the colonies. Robert Zubrin drives this point home effectively in many of his frontier speaches. Indeed, manufacturing your resources locally was and is obviously more efficient and less costly.

This ?will never be the case for Mars? simply because we'll freaking know better.

[Mars] will stay a scientific outpost just like Antarctica.

I know someone who lived in Antarctica for awhile. They lived there because they wanted to, that's all. Granted, they didn't really have the ablity to sustain themselves there, but that's not the point, really. They could have given the proper technology.

We go colonize Mars for many reasons, the most notable one being because we can. There are two lines of history I can forsee both of which end in the same results no matter what.

When technology reaches a level of self reproducablity (that is, technology has the ablity to make anything, including to make itself- and please, don't patronize me, I've been studying ontonlgy and the nature of AI for a little while now and I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about here- this is the future, to not see it is to be oblivious to history) there will either be:

1) Government will ban any sort of high level technology experimentation on the basis that it violates property laws; allowing large corporations to patent the technology, giving them complete control over everyone and everything. In a word, chaos.

2) Government will realize that technology is mans gift to itself, and create laws that do not allow proprietary rights to capital, thus keeping technology (information and knowledge) free.

(There is a line of dramatic history that could happen if timeline 1 were to occur. Some rebels could take over NASA and send colonies of people to Mars using technology they acquired from one of the bigger super powers.

I wrote a book about this possible timeline, but it's embarrassingly preachy so I never tried to get it published. )

Either way, there would still be some major structural problems. Here we have a society with the means to create anything envisionable (that obeys the laws of physics). The implications of such technology are so broad I could not explain it all within the text limit of this message box!

ALL realistic plans for a SAFE RETURN trip from mars are based on taking the neccessary resources WITH you- AND, all plans fail invariably due to the health consequences involved with long duration space missions.

Well, of course anything I would suggest would be ?unrealistic,? however, that does not mean the technology isn't there just that it costs too much. Get it? K, good.

[...] do you know how long it takes to man-rate a space vehicle?

As long as it takes to design an adequate passive shielding mechinism. Hey, I posted about this before, the arguement is irrefutable (you never refuted it, at least). I don't have time to dig up websites, but I've shown you evidence of a bureaucratic desire to forego passive shielding research. It's that plain and simple.

Do the cause some good and step down the rhetoric- Human to Mars cannot happen tommorrow, it can't happen next week. Human to Mars needs to be an integrated and common sense approach to space exploration that builds off of previous space infrastructure and space experience.

I don't think I'm doing anything ?bad? to some ?cause,? because frankly, there is no cause. Human to Mars cannot happen ?tomorrow,? of course it can't. I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was being dramatic, naturally, but I wasn't ?off? by any means.

The only problem I see any real problems in is bio-regeneration. The rest is done in computers. Indeed, you can't ?test fly? an Earth to Mars space craft. When you do it, you do it. However, our hydroponic experience is actually quite good as far as I know. I'm not a PHd, I'm a common guy, like you (I assume you are), so these are informed statements, not rhetoric, it can't be rhetoric, I'm not that bright.

BTW, ?building off previous space infrastructure? is what's kept the bureaucrats in control for so long.

Your previous statement is a half-idea. Look to the current US situation to understand what I am getting at; The US maintains it's liberty, but that liberty is not founded on quality for all- it is founded on equality for all americans- which leads those that do not enjoy our liberty (becuase they have no equality) to lash out- we step our security in order to maintain the status quo- losing some of our liberty in the process.

I bet to differ, the US has no security with regard to liberty or equality. It finds the secuirty of a big corporation more important than the security of an individual, kind of against itself, though, since the Constitution still holds up against any property laws (strange, but true). What we need are laws protecting both equality of conditions and liberty. Laws are synonymous with security. I know what you're getting at, I just think you missunderstand the scale of security I'm talking about. Without laws protecting liberty or equality, then they cannot exist. Liberty cannot exist without equality, and equality cannot exist without laws protecting liberties. See how it goes? The concept is simple, really.

Please, site where you get your information.

At the momment, I can't find the site. I'll retract the statement if you like, it's just that it's hard for me to comprehend the vast ammounts of money thrown into the space industry.

Maybe I've reached some level of Zen, though.

It costs billions becuase it is cutting edge technology and science.

Normally, that would be true, but in the case of the Space Shuttle, it's 20 year old technology. Go figure.

Hmm... air factories, carbon dioxide scrubbers.

Redundancy?

No, c'mon, we have a post in these very forums about a rather cool air conversion machine, actually, it's pretty hot, but yaknow.

UV protection.

Venzotriazole? Same stuff used on car windows? 97% blockage?

Water reclaimation facilities, food areas, power generation.

Have you been on a nuclear sub lately?

[...] well, what about these habitats- where do they come from? Factor in cost of producing and shipping to Mars.

That's like telling me to factor the cost of man power it takes to really build a stadium. From the people who go and dig up the ore for steel, to the people who paint little logos on the windows. And I can tell you, that is far far more than $200 million dollars. It's a plastic trashbag clark, is it so hard to be envisioned as being mass produced? It's made of plastic!

Put your money in textile stock in 2020, you won't regret it.

Yet somehow we have things like war and crime.

?Yet ?somehow? (as though it's actually unfathomable!) we have war and crime!? I have to keep this dignified even though I was insulted pretty badly towards the end here. But it doesn't surprise me you can't see inevitabile technological growth, you can't even see the problems in the world as it is.

This is a different discussion, but the Martian Fronteir is NOT analgous to the American Fronteir- you cannot draw any meaningful results from the american experience and think it will apply to Mars- the environment (which is what made the American Fronteir) are too dissimilar.

Yes we can. You just don't have a good imagination. It's simple, you can't colonize Mars until you have the infrastructure, and once it's in place the two will be completely similiar. When I say that we can ?go tomorrow,? I mean tomorrow the infrastrcture can be built, on technology we already have acquired. Go ahead, run down a list of ?problems? and I'll give you current-technology solutions.

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument or theory that proves to me that Mars will be anything OTHER than a scientific outpost.

Oh come now. I think the best argument is in the Sunset article on the front page, if anything! Truely, my friend who lived in Antarctica didn't live there because there was money to be made,they did it because they wanted to.

Why can't injustice exsist? What is inherent to Mars that prevents injustice? Your utopian ideal is a house of cards.

Space prohibits capitalism. When the technological revolution happens (and it will; sure, it's been ?predicted? in the past by various writers, like Stuart infers in his Reality Bites article, but timescales don't matter- we're seeing growth aren't we?), there will undoubtedly be a struggle, and I think, that would be when people decide they should go to a place where they can start anew. Mars.

My ?utopian ideal? is merely acceptance of inevitability.

There can be no legitimate discussion, and your cannot be taken seriously if you resort to the magic of technology to solve all of our human short-comings.

I think you fail to understand where I'm coming from. And I think this mindset is going to be destructive when the world finally does see where I'm coming from.

I'm not using technology to fix ?human shortcomings.? In fact, I don't see the level of suffering changing one single bit between the two worlds. Indeed, the tyrrany of the individual over itself is pretty severe. Life may seem ?utopian? but problems would still exist.

Read some Proudhon, it'll do you some good.

Josh Cryer · Human missions

My typing is weird that late at night.

What would knowledge be if it wasn't organized?

Josh Cryer · Human missions

Not to start a flame war of terminology, I think technonolgy and knowledge are quite synonymous.

I think it's inaccurate to suggest a deprecation of technology when it's clear that technology has truely taken off, especially with the advent of the aerospace industry (computers are the result of both war-time decryption efforts and aerospace navigation requirements).

There is a deprecation, but it's not in technology, but in the unproductive use of technology. It is my humble opinion that no technology should be used longer than the cost of creating replacement technology that is more efficient. So when new more efficient technology is conceptualized, it should replace old technology.

The Mars Society could build a replacement shuttle for less than the cost of a Space Shuttle launch if we wanted.

We have the resources. How many of us are running SETI@home or some other distributed computing program? Why not use those resources to design an inherently cheap Space Shuttle?

Less is more. Simple is better.

It could then be funded by a multi-corporation and ran by amateur astronauts.

Personally, I liked the design of the X-33 and Venturestar. Too bad they never came to be. They could have been very cheap to launch, with most of the cost going to fuel. (It would have costed NASA 50 million to launch an X-33, but it wouldn't take us as much to launch one as we wouldn't have the kind of insane overhead NASA has.)

Of course, I know this is a ?pipe dream.? I'm just stating these ideas for anyone who wants to listen.

Josh Cryer · Terraformation

Alexander, I assume you mean living microbes? The likelyhood of living microbes on Mars is very low, dormat, possibly, but not living.

Once we have categorized, studied, and know how to reproduce every general type of microbe on the surface then we have nothing more to learn and can begin ecopoesis. Yes it will take some time to do this, maybe as much as a century in the case that they live in remote underground regions.

I think it would take many, many, many lifetimes, even with super futuristic AI technology. Mars is big. Very big compared to a puney human. It would be extremely hard to search everywhere. The question is; when do we decide to give up searching? If we do find life during the planned search period, we would be compelled to search every inch of the planet. And I'm sure the Reds would use that argument very successfully (and I'm not quite sure I would be against such an argument). In the event that that did happen, Mars would not be terraformed for a very very long time.

So how would the search happen? After preliminary geological surveys are complete we would have a good idea where to search, and that should not take long at all, really, since most of it can be (and is being) done from space. After these specific spots are searched rigorously (one to two decades sound fair?), we would have either found what we were looking for (life) or we would not.

Personally, I don't see us finding anything living on Mars. I believe the atmospheric deterioration was too quick for anything to evolve and adapt. There is a slight possiblity of dormat microbes, but I don't see that happening either. I think it would be bad science to waste time chasing ghosts. If nothing can be found in a certain period of time, we shouldn't go off uncovering each and every rock.

So anyway, yes, terraformation should definitely happen regardless. However, I don't see it happening any time soon if there is life on Mars. And I'm not sure it should. Not until the ecosystem was completely mapped. And that could take many lifetimes. (Dormat species might be an exception, but science tries not make unverifiable assumptions, so even in the instance that we found dormat microbes in ice somewhere specific we may still be compelled to search the whole planet.)

Josh Cryer · Human missions

Oops, double post!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#3776 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-23 01:11:58

#3777 Re: Water on Mars » Water ice on Mars. - Elaborate breakdown of the polar caps. » 2002-01-23 00:43:00

#3778 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 17:02:21

#3779 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 16:46:01

#3780 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-22 15:07:13

#3781 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Communism is what will happen - Communism on Mars (not Soviet soc.) » 2002-01-21 17:43:52

#3782 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-21 17:33:21

#3783 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Do laws really work? » 2002-01-21 16:59:48

#3784 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Do laws really work? » 2002-01-20 21:13:05

#3785 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Domed habitats... - ...size, materials, and more. » 2002-01-20 17:36:10

#3786 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-20 16:01:11

#3787 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Do laws really work? » 2002-01-20 03:59:10

#3788 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-19 00:04:12

#3789 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Domed habitats... - ...size, materials, and more. » 2002-01-18 17:15:28

#3790 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-18 17:06:10

#3791 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-18 16:13:46

#3792 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-18 00:56:22

#3793 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-16 15:31:49

#3794 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-16 13:41:45

#3795 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-16 00:55:55

#3796 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Mars, Government, and Rights » 2002-01-15 08:16:41

#3797 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-14 15:02:26

#3798 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-14 00:27:15

#3799 Re: Terraformation » Red Views » 2002-01-13 23:43:57

#3800 Re: Human missions » Mars? Moon first. - Mars is too hard and dangerous for now. » 2002-01-12 12:42:47

Board footer