New Mars Forums

That technology can sold in a free market - well thats just obvious!

However the "free market" doesn't necessarily create or advance technology and knowledge. There is no magical connection between them. Sometimes consumer demand can result in the creation of innovative technology but thats hardly the full picture.

Generally there has always been a good degree of market interference by goverments. The primary consumers for Integrated Circuits were US millitary and space programs. The price of IC's was well too high, but mass production was possible thanks to goverment demand for putting them in missiles/apollo - which gradually brought down the price.

The Volkswagen wasn't brought about by the "free market" in Nazi Germany, but by a goverment plan to make a family car affordable etc etc

Same deally with the rocket technology that put people on the moon. That wasn't develop in a "Free Market", but was a spin off of weapons designed for Germany. 

Even extremely opressive states can create very advance technology (which is why everybody is going apeshit over Iran) and this wasteful spending can create markets for useful spin offs.

Yeah, What difference?

If there is going to be peace in the Middle East, somebody is going to have to negotiate with Hamas. Otherwise, we'll hear months of murder and mayhem on the news. Hamas were democratically elected by the Palestinian people and their choice should be respected whether we like it or not. If we're going to promote democracy in the middle east, we can't just punish entire countries for their democratic choices.

 
Jimmy Carter made brave and great steps in this direction. He doing what the US and Israeli goverments should be doing right now.

Once again, I think great lessons can be learned from the Northern Ireland peace process.

Meh! I wouldn't put too much hope in finding a president is who 'excited about space' to help with NASA's funding.

The public kinda doesn't care too much about manned space mission atm because we haven't got further than the Moon again and attempts to get to Mars are far far far away, like a couple of decades.

There are no near term economic or millitary goals to be gained from focusing on a manned space program, so the goverment just doesn't give a shit. Because the Cold War is over, there is no advesary to show off against either.

Until one of these conditions change NASA is going to seriously underfunded for a long time.

I think the public could get behind the idea if a manned mission to Mars was planned to happen before 2020. Getting the government behind the idea is proabably the biggest problem.

The Evidence? Just look at the state of Iraq post invasion! There are so many reports on it, I won't even bother quoting. Google helps. There are also many books on it. I don't have all day

If turning a country into a unworkable wreck and breeding ground for terrorism is evidence of a working strategy....

They've taken some colour photos and they're impressive, but they need more. Full colour video would do the trick. It would make Mars feel more tangible!

I rather like the idea of this mission as it will extend the presence of humans in space and give valuable experience on how to work on an asteroid.

If asteroid mining is ever to take off, this is the kinda mission we'll need to jump start it. I hope they do several such missions and test drilling and coring equipment on a NEO.

If we drilled into it, we could establish a base inside a NEO, protected from space radiation etc etc.

That may be the most interesting way of storing energy I've ever heard off and it doesn't do anything complicated!

Damn, I wish more people would think like that instead of crying about how our energy problems are hopeless and nuclear is the only awnser!!

Bullshit! Nearly all the greatest breakthroughs in technology in the 20th and 21st Century have practically nothing to do with "free markets" or "democracy". They were mostly spin offs of expensive state sponsored programs. The internet, rockets, a cheap affordable car, microchips, GPS, nuclear weapons etc etc etc

Sure, when something useful was discovered the private sector was allowed to sell it for profit.

I seem to remember the US's space program's existence owing a lot to that german V-bomb designer, not free markets.

Since nobody is generally going for this on Earth - its not likely to be true.

You could have a pretty medievil standard of living on Earth very easily (go to any third world country), but most people just don't do it.  They go towards big cities etc etc

Don't expect Mars colonies to be much less than a large industrialized operation. It will be very uneconomic otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I think we can build new types of city and settlement on Mars - different to anything on Earth.

Maybe had the US media looked into "every nook and cranny", the shuttle accidents could have been avoided. Afterall, the causes of both accidents were known about in far in advance by engineers and ignored by managers at NASA.

The shuttle maybe "the most technically capable vehicle", but its still dumb.
Its an over complicated time bomb that costs too much and can't get human out of LEO. It doesn't really do anything that other launchers can't do for much cheaper.

This is why NASA is doing a 180 with Ares and Orion, going back to the older and more practical ways of doing manned space vehicles.

Not that I think that NASA are useless (They've done many successful thigns in space), but the Russian deserve their dues for creating reliable space transport and some fantastic engineering!

lets say a very minimal for mass transport would be 12 people. thats 4 times the amount of a soyuz craft and a little under twice the shuttles capability.

We would want to be transporting as much as passenger plane, ocean liner or bus/train, around 100+ people!