New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#26 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-24 07:54:49
Total Bullshit.
The Oil companies love the current high prices and have had their profits jump to incredibly highs since 2003!! They love the current situation. They are totally profiteering of the instabilities and wars in the Middle East.
Oil companies have nice little things called "profit sharing agreements" with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They make as much money out of speculation as the Opec countries.
The US government get a higher percent that the oil companies do. That is why nothing is changing.
you guys are paranoid about taxation. What are the feds spending that on? a fancy mansion with a pool?
#27 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia+Europe sign deal to build six seater Lunar Craft! :D » 2008-05-23 11:22:36
There's been so much bashing here of NASA's Orion capsule as old tech and equally ignorant adoration of the perfect Soyuz system, it's reassuring to see that RKA/ESA agree with NASA's approach. It's also good to see that there will be another system available for reaching cis lunar space.
Both RKA and ESA as well as JAXA and CSA are collaborating with NASA on the human lunar exploration program, the synergy will be of benefit to everyone. The lunar program has the potential to excite even the sleepy old Europeans :>
No there hasn't.
I certainly gave the Orion Capsule no abuse. I criticized the shuttle. Russia deserves its due credit for creating a reliable space vehicle thats has had the longest history in manned spaceflight
All in all, both sides have chosen a pretty practical method to get to the Moon, building upon their respective technologies and experience.
This rightly means great things for Manned Lunar Exploration!!! I'm totally psyched!!
#28 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-23 09:52:05
Total Bullshit.
The Oil companies love the current high prices and have had their profits jump to incredibly highs since 2003!! They love the current situation. They are totally profiteering of the instabilities and wars in the Middle East.
Oil companies have nice little things called "profit sharing agreements" with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They make as much money out of speculation as the Opec countries.
#29 Re: Terraformation » Solarised Trade and Infrastructure. » 2008-05-23 09:46:55
yup!
Not only that, we don't even have the materials to create a space elevator. We've only a basic concept. Even if we did, all sort of little problems could creep up on us. Perhaps uneven heating of the tether could cause it to weather and snap. A good portion of its is in space and would be subject to rapid heating and cooling. The temperature at the base is going to be much different cause its in Earth atmosphere etc etc I don't know if those will be problems - but they could be and things like that will make the costs sky rocket.
We can (and should) do space exploration. Its brilliant to extend our presence off Earth, settle and explore the universe. We can build infrastructure for that, to bring industry, trade and transport to outer space.
Its not a magic bullet for the Earth problems. Whiltst we're colonizing outer space, we're also going to be coming up with practical and afforadable solutions to Earth's problems at the same time!!!
To quell the Earth population explosion, we should be thinking of ways to be increase the standard of living in poor and developing countries. Approx a Billion people are living in poverty today. Most of the diseases these people suffer from are relatively easy and affordable to treat. Education and better job opportunities also help.
In the developed industrial countries (Japan, USA, Europe) , the Birth rate tends to decline and become stable 
Its only in the poorer regions of the planet that the population is exploding out of control.
#30 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Russia+Europe sign deal to build six seater Lunar Craft! :D » 2008-05-23 07:54:43
Apollo-like capsule chosen for Crew Space Transportation System - 22 May 2008
By Rob Coppinger
In a departure from previous spherical Russian capsule designs, a conical manned capsule with a service module has been selected for the European Space Agency and Russia's Federal Space Agency (FSA) joint programme Crew Space Transportation System (CSTS).
With a maiden test flight expected in 2015 and the first manned mission scheduled for 2018, both from Russia's planned Vostochny spaceport, the CSTS would carry six astronauts to low-Earth orbit or four to the Moon like NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle, the design is a conical capsule and service module.
Under the agreement reached on 15 April by ESA and FSA, both organisations will engage in joint systems engineering tasks while ESA's industrial consortium will develop the service module and Russia's Rocket and Space Corporation Energia will be the capsule's prime contractor and oversee service module-capsule integration. The service module will be derived from ESA's International Space Station cargo spacecraft, the Automated Transfer Vehicle.
The FSA describes the CSTS launcher as having a baseline payload capability of 18,000kg (39,600lb). However, the capsule and service module combined mass may not be that much, says Manuel Valls, ESA's CSTS programme manager and head of policy for the agency's human spaceflight, microgravity and exploration directorate. He told Flight International: "The Russian rocket is not part of the co-operation agreement."
Valls says the CSTS will be designed to be compatible with Russia's and ESA's spaceports and he does not rule out, in the long term, the vehicle being launched on a man-rated EADS Astrium Ariane 5. Despite rumours of a cargo variant CSTS, Valls says there is only a crew version for the time being.
An intermediate system concept for the crewed CSTS will be discussed by ESA and the FSA in June and a technical and programmatic report will be finalised in October. The agency's leadership will present to its ministerial November conference the report's proposal for the member states to fund the development of the ATV-derived service module and related activities for its integration with the capsule and launcher.
What will all the Orion bashing Soyuz lovers have to say now?
Well, I would say - grow up!! Thats just so silly. I hope you're not being serious! I don't really care who does space exploration once somebody does it!
The bottom line is that both NASA and RSK/ESA are embracing the older way of doing manned space exploration, helping us all break out of LEO.
Orion is making use of experience gained from the Shuttle and Apollo. CSTS is building on expertise gained from both ATV and Soyuz. The shuttle turned into a very bad dead end for manned space flight.
This is good news for space exploration and will hopefully contribute to habitation of Moon, Asteroids and Mars and getting us off the planet. Thats exciting!!!
#31 Re: Civilization and Culture » Naming the colony » 2008-05-23 05:39:47
How about "AT LAST"
The way things are going it might well be the first words spoken on Mars.
lolololol
#32 Re: Terraformation » Solarised Trade and Infrastructure. » 2008-05-22 17:31:43
I have a simple question for you. Have you ever been in an airplane, say a passenger jet that flies at 30,000 feet? At 30,000 feet you'd be knocked out due to lack of oxygen in less than a minute.
How do you suppose that people survive in the cabin of an airplane for hours?
Commerical Jet airplanes have a life support system that's how, because the environment at 30,000 feet is hostile to human life. Now if it were so hard to support human life at high altitudes, why don't such airplanes fly at low altitudes where the air is breathable? The airlines wouldn't have to invest in all that equipment to keep passengers alive at 30,000 feet if it flew its airplanes at less that 5,000 feet for instance. There must be an economic benefit for them to fly their airplanes at 30,000 feet, I think it is to save fuel by reducing drag, and to reduce flight times by travelling faster through thinner air, that could be it. In the future, people may fly even higher than that, perhaps at 500,000 feet, at that altitude there is no air drag at all, once you reach that altitude you don't even need wings. A fusilage as air tight as a 747 but with thicker or stronger walls can hold in the air pressure to keep passengers alive against the vacuum of space, and what is the benefit? You can travel to any point on the Earth's surface in under two hours. Once you can sustain passengers for a two-hour flight through space, you can go on longer journeys, to a space station, to the Moon, perhaps to Mars. Plenty of sunlight for growing food, most of the Sun's light does not even reach Earth, so long as you can maintain a pressure vessel with transparent windows, you can grow crops inside. On Earth the agricultural space is limited to the available surface area that is exposed to sunlight, and to grow food you also have to compete with natural ecosystems. If you expand your farm, some wildlife will suffer as you cut down trees and drain swamps, in space that is not so. So the price you pay for growing food on Earth is also paid in terms of environmental degradation. You could invest in greater efficiency and higher yeilding crops, but their are limits. The same investment could instead be invested into improving the transportation off Earth, because in space you can just keep on expanding indefinitely, on Earth, you can only achieve some fraction of 100% efficiency.
people fly in planes. they don't use them as homes or pieces of real estate. that would cost too much. planes also crash quite a lot. space accidents happen at a much higher rate. keeping people alive on mars or in space will be far more expensive than doing anything on earth in this century. the earth based solution is always going to be much much cheaper in this 100 years.
its just not a near term solution for the earths problems, nor one that economics or business people are likely go with.
I gladly support human colonization of space using advanced technology and advanced infrastructure (hence why i came up with this thread on effective ways to achieve it) but its not a magic solution. in the future there may be a big human presence in space, if we invest in the infrastructure
irrigating the sahara desert and colonizing the ocean with platforms would both be more practical and easy to achieve than going to asteroids or mars or growing food in orbit... I'm not saying we should do those, but if the shit hit the fan, its more likely that those would happen than space colonies. do u know how much it would cost to launch a billion people into space?
#33 Re: Not So Free Chat » Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$ » 2008-05-22 14:40:05
Why should most Palestinians kill themselves over land most of them have never seen? Land that doesn't have oil to boot.
the same reasons as the israelis...
nobody asks them: why don't they just go live in New York or Europe or any were else? They won't get killed in a violent dispute over a small patch of land in the desert. you seem to think that they're "western" and "democratic" blah blah so they will fit in their with their judeo-christian brothers just fine!
honestly, this is obviously a stupid line of argument. you can't just kick people of their homeland and expect them to be happy with it, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian! There needs to be a democratic and fair acommodation of both groups, free of racism.
#34 Re: Civilization and Culture » Naming the colony » 2008-05-22 13:07:27
In the USA colonists often changed the name of their place after a few years of settlement. No harm in starting off with something alluring!
Its Mars.... how more alluring can it be? People would chop of a right arm to go!
I'm not into fanciful names until I get a feel of things. A good name will come, but it has to develop naturally from being there
I would start of with colony A, and let the settlers rename it after a few years based on what it means to them!!
#35 Re: Civilization and Culture » Naming the colony » 2008-05-22 09:20:48
I wouldn't give it a fanciful name until we know what its like.
When we know what its like to live there and get a good feel for it, we could give it an apropriate name.
#36 Re: Terraformation » Solarised Trade and Infrastructure. » 2008-05-21 09:31:11
what the hell are you talking about? I mentioned none of those things you brought up. Its just an obvious fact that space colonization is more difficult, impractical and expensive than any earth based solutions. From an economic and practical point of view, its not going to be a solution in the near term.
We should go into space to explore space and extend humanity reach, but not for escapism because it won't solve anything. eventually there will be big ass space colonies and a trillion people there, just not in my life time.
space is not some magical cure and answer. supporting life up there is so much more expensive than anything you could do on earth cause Earth already is so conducive to it and space is so hostile to living creatures
#37 Re: Civilization and Culture » New language for Mars? » 2008-05-21 09:17:33
that would be stupid and inefficient,
the language of Mars will be whatever languages the majority of the martian population speak.
if we to impose a made up language, probably esperanto
#38 Re: Civilization and Culture » Naming the colony » 2008-05-21 09:14:45
colony A?
#39 Re: Terraformation » Solarised Trade and Infrastructure. » 2008-05-20 17:50:23
I think that's a v. good point TK, and I think it reinforces something I would say - that space exploration, off earth ISRU etc are all very important to us being able to copy with the problems associated with trying to accommodate the ridiculous figure of 10 billion (and rising) human beings on the planet in the next few years.
It would still be cheaper and easier to accommodate 20 billion people on the planet by using earth's resources and new technology than it would to do it in space. Eventually we'll get there but Its not a miracle solution to the Earth's problems
#40 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-20 17:37:10
we should give them something to lose if they don't...
They wouldn't able to commit their crimes without enormous US financial and military aid
#41 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-20 17:33:08
a GC nuclear rocket, possibly using NILFiR (Isp 3000) would be a good kind of ship to have.
I know nothing about gc, but what stops it having a meltdown?
#42 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Solar Federal Republic » 2008-05-20 14:25:13
To get millions of people living in outerspace in the next 200 years would require a breakthrough in energy and propulsion - probably Fusion.
Having Fusion Power and propulsion would enable us obtain minerals from all over the solar system to build space craft and colonies pretty much anywhere.
Anti-Matter might become doable if we discover a way to create and store loads of it efficiently. CERN LHC will tell us more about that soon.
#43 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-20 12:06:23
What is demonstrated is "cart before the horse" reasoning. The reason the Israelis have seperate roads is directly attributed to the violent behavior of the Palestinians and their expressed support for violence as demostrated by their election of Hamas in the Gaza strip. Contrary to bulldozing houses of Palestinians so that Jews can live there, Jews have evacuated the Gaza strip and the Palestinians have either bulldozed or otherwise occupied former Jewish homes, and they've begun a program of missile contruction and launches of rockets with the intent of killing hapless Israeli civilians in Israel proper. All this Liberal rhetoric against Israel is in equal parts pandering to Arabs and a reflexive attack against George Bush's foreign policy in which they intend to do just the opposite of what he's doing. I've noticed alot of Jews who actually care about their Judaism have been becoming Republicans lately. Some Jews just can't contemplate marching in lockstep with pro-Palestinian demonstrators who chant "Death to Israel" and call for their blood, jews who have up to now been stalwart Democrats and liberals now find themselves in the crosshairs of non-jewish liberals and "antiwar" protestors.
You could be equally accused of "cart before the horse" reasoning! Palestinians aren't being violent for no reason, there are many many preceeding causes to it. Violence precceded the election of Hamas, and the other Palestinian faction Fatah was behind much of it (people have a short memory and tend to forget this)
Turning a country into hell because of who they democratically elected is both disturbing and gives the wrong message in the Middle East. It tells them that we are bunch of hypocrites who have no respect for democracy. What is the point of democracy if their leaders have to be who we tell them?
The so called liberal rhethoric against Israel is infact a rejection of US foreign policy for decades, well before Bush came into power. There is no reason why anyone should be "pandering to Arabs" anymore than the whole US Goverment should be pandering to a Jewish state. There is no sectarianism in the US constitution - so I find it all a little un-american and unpatriotic to support such a state. I'm sure you wouldn't support preferential treatment to on the base of race or religion in your own country.
I find your phrasing "pandering to Arabs" to be a tacit agreement with racism. Maybe that just my impression and I'm wrong..
Call me a "Liberal" or whatever, but my position is that Palestinians deserve rights and self determination, just like Israeli's or Americans or any people on the earth do!
Even when Gaza was evacuated and turned into a virtual open air prison, Israel consolidated it gains in the West Bank and it did not stop bulldozing houses and building settlements. This isn't a response to Palestinian terrorism - Its just pure expansionism. The same policy has been going on for decades. Israel wants to annex as much of the territory as possible.
#44 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-19 14:39:15
"Calling it anything less is pretty disrespecful to millions of Palestinians who have suffered at the hands of the Israeli regime."
Maybe, but is it an accurate use of the word? And is using words contrary to their plain meaning usually helpful in solving disputes?
Bob
The Palestinians are living in a situation were their homes are bull dozed to build settlements for Israeli's (predominatly Jewish). They're not allowed have Israeli citizenship because it would stop the ability of Jews to dominate the state. It often refered to as the "demographic problem"
There are seperate roads that only Israeli's are allowed to access. A giant annexation wall is being built. Israel control the borders and interfere's with various aspects of the Palestinian's lives, but won't adknowledge their rights or state.
Israeli has a racist/sectarian immigration policy that allows Jewish people anywhere in the world to become citizens regardless of their country of birth or any other connection to Israel.
This is effectively an aparthied regime.
#45 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-19 13:46:32
“I'm referring to Israel. They run a de-facto apartheid regime.”
I think that’s rather disrespectful of the tens of millions of Blacks who endured real Apartheid.
It’s easy to cheapen the currency of language, but then, of course, it’s a lot harder to know what we are really talking about. Misunderstanding is not usually a good thing when one seeks accommodation and reconciliation.
Bob
Calling it anything less is pretty disrespecful to millions of Palestinians who have suffered at the hands of the Israeli regime.
#46 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-19 13:11:56
“Launching coup detat's, overthrowing goverments, supporting dictators and aparteid regimes, threatening wars, bombings, supplying weapons that kill civilians and rewriting tax laws by decree is just not cool.”
I think one could question each of the elements of this sentence, but lets concentrate on one: supporting apartheid regimes. I know of only one apartheid regime, South Africa from 1948 or so to 1994 or so. Nobody invaded South Africa to change their system; perhaps because they weren’t threatening anybody else. But the Western democracies sure did a lot to let South Africa know they disapproved and caused the regime considerable inconvenience:
Cultural and sporting isolation starting in the 1950s
Removal from the Commonwealth in 1961
The 1963 arms embargo
Financial support to the ANC from Western governments and NGOs starting in the 1960s
Increasing trade sanctions and disinvestment in the 1980s culminating in the 1989 US Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act.This is a record that could have been much better, but not one any fair analysis would conclude was a support of apartheid. Sins of omission are different from sins of commission.
Bob
I'm referring to Israel. They run a de-facto apartheid regime.
Oh, and what on Earth is “rewriting tax laws by decree?”
When the CPA took over control of governing Iraq, Paul Bremer rewrote Iraqi Tax laws to suit western corporations.
#47 Re: Not So Free Chat » Did Iran become a player in space ? » 2008-05-19 12:59:00
"the sanctions that killed 100 000's of Iraqi were just horrendous."
This is a rather silly myth.
Bob
Actually it's been pretty well documented and studied.
#48 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-19 12:49:48
I completely disagree.
All that really highlights is a lack of a functioning democracy. People in 1953 were afraid of communism because of a concerted effort by those in power (buisness interests) to make the public terrified and attack unions.
If all democracy amounts to is a formality were all leaders are the same rich kids picked from the same rich kids universities representing buisness interests, were the public's opinion plays no meaningful role in policy - whats the point? Its not worth its name.
.
#49 Re: Not So Free Chat » The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear » 2008-05-19 09:09:35
The flag pin is a national symbol, it is not to be worshiped. It is quite appropriate for a country at war.
So the people should "kick the governments asses" until they do what the people want, and who exactly represents the people and decides which asses to kick? The unelected media?
You're correct, its a national symbol and it should not be worshiped, but thats acutally how its used.
The flag is used as an object of reverence, not much different to how swastikas were used. If you don't like this - you're unpatriotic etc etc
State worship is just dumb. Instead of phoney waiving of a flag and pretending to love the country, I'd prefer if the politicians did their freakin' job right. Its all about the policies and pramatic stuff! Will they do a good job? Do they represent our want and needs? Does our voice count?
There are often polls run on public opinion. They give a really good indication of what the public want (though goverment policy is often contrary to this)
Its rightly up to the public to kick the asses of the goverment if they don't listen and represent them. The media generally doesn't do a very good job (it usually tows the line of goverment and buisness) It is therefore up to the public to kick the goverment's ass through disobediance and resistance.
What's the point of calling something a democracy if the public's opinion barely counts?
#50 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mass People Transport » 2008-05-19 06:11:42
Good!!!
I'm thinking that going on an interplanetary cruise will be very different to being on a passenger plane. It will be more akin to an ocean liner (like Titanic!!) It will never become as cheap as a passenger plane. It won't need to either as people would willing pay thousands to see Mars, Venus, Moon etc etc
For the time being, I don't necessarily mean commerical passenger services.
I'm thinking of how a large Martian colony/base could be built and maintained using near contemporary technology. that would require a lot of workers.
Whether we use a SSTO method or Ares-style Rocket to get people up there to orbit, a ferry vehicle between Earth and Mars would still be an extremely useful piece of infrastructure. It would never need to land so it would be fully reusable and much bigger than any craft that could be launched on the ground!