New Mars Forums

This particular asteroid is one of many such close passing asteroids known.  I wonder what would be required to go visit one?  The computed relative velocities at impact are very high, but about 10km/s of that is due to the pull of Earth's own gravity. 

The pass will be within 30000km, lower than geosynchronous orbit.  You'd think we could get a probe to run alongside, no problem.

Hmm...

CME

I once heard a professor on a lecture tour, talking about how cold fusion was a load of bunk.  She said that this was a case where ?the system worked?, allowing scientists to determine the worth of a new claim.  Unfortunately, that claim is garbage, too, IMHO.  Later research into the history of the uproar suggests to me that the system aggravated the problem.   

Pons & Fleischman weren?t the originators of the idea that ?cold? fusion could occur, nor were they the only ones running experiments at the time. 

Louis Alvarez (you may remember him in relation to the equally famous theory that an asteroid impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs) was the first to suggest that nuclear fusion could occur at room temperature.  His idea was that muon-catalyzed fusion (another Alvarez theory) could occur through interactions with cosmic radiation in the atmosphere.  Such reactions would be an infinitesimal trickle of random freak events, barely noticeable even with the best equipment.   However, this would occur as a natural phenomenon here on Earth.  Though conceivable in light of accepted theory, it was never observed, but this was just fine with Alvarez because the expected reaction rate was so low you could barely expect to find anything anyway.

Another scientist, named Jones, investigated the idea that the fusion reactions Alvarez had predicted (but never observed) might be sped up by loading the atoms inside a hydride, like graphite or palladium.  This loading is the same principle used in nickel/metal-hydride batteries.  Then he added all kinds of bells and whistles, IMHO, because his hypothesis was that the natural trickle of fusion that Alvarez had predicted was more common inside the solid material of the earth rather than up in the atmosphere.  He loaded his reaction chambers with salts, tried various types of rock, ran it at various pressures, and generally tried to mimic conditions found in the Earth?s interior. 

He found something.  Not a power source or nuclear furnace, but confirmation of a new natural phenomenon.  So, he wrote a paper and submitted it for review.  The journal he submitted his paper to followed the APS guideline that papers on a topic should be reviewed by two other scientists working in the same field. 

The two scientists initially selected to review the paper were Pons & Fleischman, who were known to be investigating Alvarez?s muon-catalyzed fusion hypothesis as well.  Realizing they were going to be preempted, they went to the press less than four days later with tales of results so many orders of magnitude beyond what anybody expected that it set off warning lights across the scientific community.  Naturally, their unsubstantiated story sold like hotcakes.  The journal, Physical Review Letters, assigned Jones?s review to someone more ethical, and it was quietly published amid the ensuing hoopla.

Pons & Fleischman were the first in print.  However, if you?re looking for the first paper claiming positive results that actually got a peer review, it?s Jones?s. 

Jones?s work was effectively suppressed along with the rest when the American Physical Society stopped considering research into cold fusion.  The National Science Foundation and other funding agencies that depend on the APS for review quickly followed suit, and the research funding was halted because of its political associations.  It remains the official position of the APS that cold fusion is a fiction, which does not exist in any form. 

Scratch one natural phenomenon, courtesy of the APS.

CME

There are ways of avoiding burnout other than resorting to intixicants. 

However, strictly recreational drugs - without common medical use - aren't the only ones the colonists will have a desire for.  I think it will be vitally important for colonists to be able to produce their own medical supplies.  This means that they must be able to produce their own drugs as well. 

Those little seeds stuffed into personal allotments might just be welcomed by those responsible for colony operations for reasons that have nothing to do with getting a good buzz.

CME

Because outrage is neither their prime motive nor main tactic.

Well, while my instinct would be to argue that Translife is no more of a risk than any other scientific experiment, my gut tells me that I'll be very disappointed if mammals (like people) can't survive and multiply in low gravity fields.  And that is a perfectly conceivable outcome, for which we must be prepared.  A lot is riding on that little can of mice.

CME

Obviously, the bare bones of the Mars Direct mission is not a suitable infrastructure.  But what is?

If we have enough people there long enough, children will be conceived whether the infrastructure is there or not.  Unless crewmembers are sterilized, random chance will eventually see to it. 

So, since they're coming anyway, what's required to raise children? 

CME

I?m not suggesting that it would be simple to keep a child alive and physically healthy on a Mars Direct style mission.  For one thing, the ERV?s life support supply margin is not sufficient to return the crew to Earth with an extra person.  They?re stranded.  The clothing available aboard the hab is utterly unsuitable, as are the sanitation and hygiene supplies.  Then there?s the food problems Cindy mentioned. 

However, one should note that these are all essentially supply problems.  Nine months of lead time might allow Mission Control to do something about this using an unmanned resupply mission. 

Then there's the matter of the crew morale.  If there's anything in the universe capable of shredding the mission plan, it's an infant.  From the moment a baby comes on board, you may safely consider a quarter of the mission objectives unfulfillable and half of the rest ignored.  However, an infant with a chance of survival is just as likely to be a rallying point for a small isolated group as it is to be a source of discord.  It's just depends on the crew.

Other dreaded problems are likely of the imaginary variety. 

Delivery in zero gravity, for example, is not an issue.  True, I suspect that artificial gravity will be employed during the trip, but the baby won?t be born in time to enjoy it during the trip out.  The trip to Mars is less than nine months, and any misguided attempt to use a free-return trajectory is suicide (or infanticide) for the same reason the original ERV is useless ? lack of supplies.  A free return trajectory takes away any reasonable chance of resupply, and that takes away any reasonable chance of survival.  At least if you can get to the Martian surface, you can tap the (now useless) ERV.

If mommy wants to keep the baby, she?s going to Mars. 

Incidentally, even if the crewman (excuse me, ?crewwoman? ) opts for abortion, it may not be any safer under the conditions of the mission than trying to take the baby to Mars.  I must assume that the crew will be using some sort of long term birth control, if only to control menstruation.  (Note: Pregancy is still a possibility.  Depa-Provera is 99.99% effective, not 100.00%)  It?s entirely possible that no one is going to notice anything amiss until the pregnancy has progressed quite far.  There is a regimen of pills that can be used to induce an abortion, but it becomes less and less safe to use as the pregnancy progresses.  A D&E procedure is hardly the safest thing for any random medic to be doing to his/her crewmate.  Even though having the child is risky, terminating the pregnancy may not be the safer option in all cases.

A pregnancy on a Mars Direct style mission creates an emergency, but it does not create a medical emergency.  It merely increases the risk of one.  The immediate problems are material and logistic, not medical.  Problems of material can be solved if there are sufficient resources and warning time.  So can problems of logistics.

CME

I agree, Phobos.

If I may be morbid for a minute:

I recall reading something written by an astronaut.  He stated that not only were the legendary suicide pills in space of the urban legendary variety, but if you wanted to kill yourself in space, screwing up the oxygen partial pressure is a very simple, relatively fast and above all _painless_ way to do it.  Most of the discomfort people suffer when dying of suffocation by the traditional methods comes from increasing the carbon dioxide, not taking away the oxygen. 

Thanks for your time.

CME

Hello Oker.

So, you?ve got a yearning for a technocracy, eh? 

Well it?s an idea that can be pursued.  However, you should be aware that while letting professional scientists run everyone else?s lives is an easy substitute for educating the general populace, it is not dramatically better.  Also, I?m assuming that the population of a Mars colony is going to start out mostly science literate as a necessity for survival.  An early Mars colony is likely to be filled with scientists, engineers, and other highly educated professional people.  Concentrating scientists in the ruling class is unlikely to change the distribution of skills very much.  Also, scientists are not as efficient at discerning competence as you seem to believe.  They can be just as contentious as any other social group, with all the fudging and self interest that this entails.

I also disagree that voting is useless, though I readily admit that different types of voting systems are better for different situations.  Coming from the United States, I of course favor a constitutional republic with interrelated voting oligarchies, especially one which has checks and balances existing between the oligarchies.  For example, the US State Populations, the US Supreme Court, the US Congress and the US Electoral College are all distinct voting oligarchies whose interplay is part of the same system.  In order for one voting oligarchy to assume more power, it must usurp it from another.  I like that sort of mix and match, because it allows one to use the best voting system for the situation at hand (such as, say, a legislative house comprised mainly of scientists and professionals), then immediately switch to another when it becomes the best choice (like a public referendum).  And it can weed out rash decisions by requiring them to filter through several oligarchies before acceptance.  Also, you should note that a simple binary count (where the only choice is ?YES/NO?) is not the only kind available to groups with more than two choices.  The American Physical Society, for example, uses a Borda count in their decisions. 

Some very efficient pattern recognition software employs the mathematical equivalent of voting systems, as do the computer systems on various spacecraft.   Voting isn?t done just because it makes people feel better.  It has mathematically definable uses in decision making.

Oddly, though, I must agree with you on the subject of money ? or at least economics.  Sure, an exchange medium is needed, but money is not the only exchange medium.  IMHO, the monetary price of certain essential goods and services no longer reflect their value as accurately as they should when expressed in terms of money in our modern economy.  Food is an example.  So are cellular phone and internet services.  Price has begun to be a very poor reflection of production costs for certain items.  It is as though technology of distribution and/or production has neutralized the relationships between supply and demand in these instances.  The situation may be temporary, the economies of the world may adjust over time, but for now the disparity is almost surreal.  And not a little worrisome.

CME

How generous a donor would that have to be? 

CME

Does anyone know of any efforts to grow plants at the Mars Analog Research Stations?

CME

Hello BGD.

You wrote:

A good deal of the remaining 300kg could conceivably be fed to animals.  But it could also be composted.  Martian soil is doubtless going to need a lot of humus and only a small amount of "starter formula" can be brought from Earth at a time. 

Even so, I don't see why we couldn't have a little bit left over for small animals.  I like the idea of rabbits, because they'll eat garden "scraps" and have other advantages.  They are  relatively efficient at breaking down certain types of plant matter and, unlike many animals, their dung is easily composted.  If you have any worries about them exceeding the carrying capacity of 100m^2, relatively small colonies of them can still replace their numbers fast enough to serve as a food source. 

My only trouble with them is they weigh a lot.  Though they are fine once you actually get them to MArs, IMHO, we might do better to take the weight of equipment & materials needed to send 20 rabbits to Mars and send a greenhouse with soil-starter and seeds for a year's complete crop in their place.

CME