New Mars Forums

No, what agnosticism really needs is something else.  I have no doubt that a lot of people are going to be telling you that you are moving in the wrong direction with this "Rational Agnosticism" of yours, and many of them will be right. 

So, let me say that I can't conceive of a better way to begin. 

If you never do anything wrong, you'll never make progress spiritually.  If you're like me, you're going to have rap a few times to find out if it's hollow.  I congratulate you on your enthusiasm, and I have faith that you'll acquit yourself well.

Just don't fall into the trap of Dawkins, et al.:  Don't take a single true fact and try to mate it with everything that will stand still long enough.

You know, I don't think there's a list.   :shock:

At this point, all such companies are either applying their skills to something else or just beginning the R & D phase.  There are a few worth watching, such as JP Aerospace, which plans to test a manned capsule this year and has given some theoretical consideration to using their launch technology for missions to other planets.  However, as far as I am aware, they are not putting additional resources toward a hypothetical Mars mission at this time.  Just like everyone else, they're focussed on making their system work well enough to get to Earth orbit first.  Mars is a distant goal for them - so distant that it's not even worth spending money on today. 

That looks pretty typical for most of the groups trying to develop new launch technologies. 

Orbit first, Mars later.

Quite possibly, but you're ascribing motive.  Motive for neotraditionalism depends on the individual.  If you look far enough, there are examples of people living neotraditionalist lifestyles that are just fine and dandy with the things you suggest they would be fleeing - except one thing.  They do not generally want the "Global Village" imposing its ideas on them, for the simple reason that when doing so the Global Village tries to crowd out competing ideas.  The one thing that all of these people have in common is that they're working to preserve something - a belief, a lifestyle, a technology, a gene pool, whatever - against the destructive homogenization that is mark of the Global Village.

And yes, some of them might wish to settle a new world for exactly the reasons you ascribe.

Regarding name recognition, check out Google Trends.  It basically counts search hits for various topics.  In this page, search hits for the various presidential candidates are charted over time.  Gingrich is not on it, not having officially declared his candidacy, but you can add him - just go to the search bar at the top of the page.

All that this chart records is searches and news article volume, not public opinion.  Also, please note the sidebar linking various points on the graph to political events.  Not everything of political importance is an election or policy making event, though - the biggest spike on the graph is when Barak Obama put in an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show.

PS - Mitt Romney declared his candidacy today.  Despite support for research being conducted in his home state of Massechussetts, he's another member of the "I'm not opposed in principle, but..." group, and I can't recommend him.

Is anyone else having problems seeing equations and math objects on the Wiki?   :?:

Sure it is - it's just not the only part. 

I'm not voting to turn Guantanamo Bay into a new Mittelwerks just to churn out better rockets for someone's von Braunian vision.  I wouldn't have voted for David Duke's gubernatorial campaign no matter how many stars he wanted to reach for.  And I won't vote for anyone who draws a false dichotomy between conscientious voting and favoring space exploration.  However, given two politicians whose platforms are otherwise equally desirable, I'll vote for the one in favor of space exploration, even if it means signing off on potential sacrifices.

PS - And I don't draw a distinction between the US Democratic party and US Republican party.  There is no difference between the two on the local level - none - and the national level of either party is most efficiently influenced directly rather than waiting to use our votes for change.

Yes.  In spite of economically destructive climate shifts and net land loss, growing seasons are likely to be extended and the percentage of the Earth's surface where conditions are suitable for year round agriculture is likely to increase.

Global warming is likely to bring about something that no one has seen since the time of Leif Erickson:  There will be wild grapes in Newfoundland again.

Well, it's official, optimists are more likely to survive illnesses requiring hospitalization - 42 percent more likely - giving them a slightly longer lifespan.

Hmm... I wonder how much more likely they are to successfully develop new launch & propulsion technologies?   

Half of the Republican Party membership doesn't agree with them, either. 

Vote your conscience, then lobby for what you want.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence of the risk of psychological problems in isolated environments, with mariner's anecdotes going all the way back to ancient Greece. 

Its only in the last century or so that scientific methods have been applied to studying the problem of mental health and crew morale in isolated environments.  What these studies reveal is that isolation and cramped space alone are not the only factors affecting the crew's health (mental and physical), and their effects can be counteracted through proper management of the mission.  Measures of crew morale reflect overall mental health, but three years of good morale isn't going to just happen.  Morale is still somewhat mysterious, but maintaining the minimum necessary to complete a mission is something that can be controlled.  Proper planning - including the provision of such details as good food and exercise, which is just as important as adequate personal space for crew morale - is required.  We can beat "space madness" without much trouble.  We just can't skimp on the materials and procedures necessary to do so.

IMHO, the worst flaw in Mars Direct's neglect of crew morale issues is not the personal space issue, which is still livable in the long term.  Several studies also indicate the necessity of having a crew member in charge of implementing all of these morale-related plans.  Since "Mission Commander" just sounds better than "Cruise Director", I propose giving our chief morale officer that title instead. 

The crew needs a commander even more than it needs a bigger ship.

No, but it does represent a situation that should be allowed for in mission planning, and dealt with immediately.

Hmm...

So, we should create all of their problems with isolation and morale up front, then send them on a three year mission together, but only after we've deliberately broken up the team to cull the weak?  I don't agree.

Amen. 

No one factor can provide a magic cure for all morale & mental health problems.  Not more space, not pre-flight screening, not even a good cruise director (er... mission commander).  We probably couldn't afford enough of it even if something were possible.  At some point, the crew will just have to suck it up.  All that we can do is make the trade-offs necessary to demand as little sucking as possible.

I do not agree.  3 launches should be enough to send the crew, ala DRM-III, but I don't vouch for its adequacy to both get the mission underway and, equally important, keep it underway.

Living and working on Mars will require more than just putting people on Mars, even if all we're talking about is a half dozen astronauts.

Well, I have no objection whatsoever to half a dozen launches for one manned mission.  In fact, allowing the use of EELV, I'd say twelve or more was perfectly reasonable.

What would be utterly ridiculous, and politically untenable, would be to send that many for the next mission (or each mission, God forbid).