New Mars Forums

IMHO, Llewelyn is an old stormcrow.

He should learn the proper form for prophesies of this nature: "Either the balloon will launch, and Saskatoon will face destruction, or the balloon will not launch and Saskatoon will be spared."  Llewelyn wants to have it both ways at the same time.   :down:

There is precedent for the idea of restricting settlement population in order to reduce the need for a police force.  The United States abounds with small towns whose residents consider their town "too small for a police force," and that's just one example.  Apparently, small community size is one factor in reducing crime.  (Crime is arguably a reflection of social stability.)  There needs to be some degree of isolation from larger communities, though - either physical or cultural - or the social advantages of a small community can be lost.

The kind of physical isolation required isn't very much.  You just need enough that people know where they don't live.  Requiring a road trip of more than a few minutes between neighborhoods would do. 

I should point out, though, that there is no economic advantage to small community size.  Also, 150 is neither the largest population with a low crime rate nor the largest stable unincorporated community. 

But it's not the lowest, either.  It's acceptable as an arbitrary population for the type of neighborhood you propose.

I'm still concerned with the interaction between neighborhoods, as well as the idea of planned creation of daughter settlements.  Keeping inter-warren relations open enough that they can all be considered to be one settlement could prove problematic.  If you can do that, why do you need an arbitrary(?) upper limit for the settlement population?  I think it would be easier to keep expanding indefinitely using the same pattern, neighborhood by neighborhood, than to expend the effort required to start a whole new settlement.

New Euthenia should leave that investment to its emigrants.

I am uncertain if I would put the argument in such absolutist terms.  (Lest I find myself arguing that my sister, whose life was saved by a pharmacist refusing to submit to prescription procedures, had a "right to die" and it was the pharmacist's job to kill her...) 

However, I think that you're correct about duty being the important concept here. 

The pharmacy regulations in most states are set up to allow deviations from procedure, but those deviations are allowed on the assumption that they can be justified by the fulfillment of the pharmacist's duties.  If the pharmacist isn't doing his job and is just taking advantage of the system to express himself, that's bad.  He should go take up art for self expression instead and leave his patients alone.

Can you imagine something like this happening on a Mars mission?  "Sorry, Commander, but 'clinical depression' is just short for 'character failings'."  Egad!  A sense of duty that actually includes the job a person is supposed to be doing would need to be strongly encouraged, even screened for.  And a severe enough failure to act should be punished.

This could be a good idea for near-Earth applications.

How do the Van Allen belts compare to the solar wind?  I know they have a comparable or higher ion density.

This is a cool idea.   

All sins are equal in the eyes of God, Clark.

Jerry Falwell's may be another matter...   

Two fields besides nutrition might offer insights on the “less food = more performance” hypothesis: Sociology and Child Care.

Regarding the extreme end of the dietary spectrum, starvation, I have some personal observations.  As a foster parent, and a former victim of child neglect myself, I can offer anecdotes from my own experience suggesting that neglect – and starvation is common in neglected children – does indeed temporarily accelerate certain aspects of intellectual development in children.  Unfortunately, this tends to come at the expense of retarding development in other areas, and if the neglect is allowed to continue even those intellectual skills that were briefly enhanced will plateau.  In spite of having single areas where they excel, neglected children tend to do less well on developmental and intelligence tests.  For example, I taught myself to cook my own food at the age of three, but could not talk or understand eye contact.  I’ve no indication that these shortfalls are the result of lack of intellectual interaction with parents, either.  Some of the poorest fed children you’ve ever seen still had playtime with Daddy and Mommy.

So, in general, if you want to teach your child to bake at age three and think you can accomplish this by using starvation to motivate him a little, buy yo’ ass a breadmaker and leave yo’ kid alone.  It won’t work.

Apparently, food is quite tightly tied up with group social dynamics as well as intellectual development.  Its effect on group morale should never be underestimated.

I strongly recommend that you read Jack Stuster’s book, _Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration_ from the US Naval Press.  (ISBN: 155750749X)  It’s an analysis of the sociology of crews serving in extreme environments.  IMHO, it’s one of the most important books a space travel enthusiast can read.  If you think that people should go to Mars, read Zubrin.  If you think that you personally should go, read Stuster. 

Stuster’s book has an entire chapter devoted to food.  The condition of an isolated crew’s food can determine morale as much as any other factor of their working conditions.  Morale determines crew productivity – arguably more so than average intelligence.  It’s generally considered better to overfeed crews and accept the small loss of efficiency this causes than to underfeed them and risk sparking a mutiny – and bad food has been cited in more than one account of mutiny.  Ask yourself this: in the absence of combat, would you prefer a bunch of fat & happy ordinary Joe’s pulling for you, or a bunch of lean & hungry geniuses scheming against you? 

Zubrin claims that the crew will be one of the strongest mission components, and Stuster’s analysis supports that claim.  But you’d better feed them.

No, not all.

That could be what we need: more stupid rich people.

:laugh:

Post Script for Jim:

Another difference is that we might be arguing two different threads under the same topic.  Can't really say I care about VTOL vs. HTOL.

Ah.  We may be coming down to the difference in our arguments.  The difference appears to be what we're holding equal.

A little earlier in this discussion, I posted that entropy and the mechanics of power transfer was a prime reason why a thermal rocket powered by a vented reactor was less thrust efficient than a rocket based on a direct reaction.  Euler called me on it, and two posts later I had to back down from that position because I hadn't allowed for differences in reaction mass between the two types of engine. 

If you insist that the two types of engine must each have the exact same reaction mass, then the entropy objection is again valid, and I can now go back and stand by my earlier assertion.

I'm not going to take that option, because I'm ultimately more interested in thrust and the power required to produce it.  Reaction mass is incidental to me, so I'm not bothering with the assumption that reaction mass is constant.

Your comparison of two water guns with equal reaction mass neglects the power required to produce the thrust in each case.  Thus, it neglects to address my objection.

What about the engine power in each case?

Um, that's _two_ deserters and confessed war criminals, isn't it?

There's some property for sale just south of the Union Carbide plant in Cancer Alley that you might be interested in...

Sounds nice.  Can you link to a picture to show how it all fits together?