New Mars Forums

Hi Josh!
Thanks for your response to my quote. I understand your liberal stance on things, though I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of it, and I'm always impressed by your ability to stand back from situations and evaluate them with a strong equanimity. I regard this as a sign of a higher intellect. (If that sounded to you like a full-on unashamed compliment .. you're right, old man .. it was! )

-- I also agree with your tendency to see things in a more optimistic light than some others, who are inclined to see a morass of insoluble problems in every direction and advertise their pessimism long and loud for various reasons. This optimistic brand of realism sets you apart, in my mind, from the general run of doomsayers among the left-leaning elites, examples of whom are clogging up the media with their politically motivated agendas every day.

-- Just lately, on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb, a newsreader said: "There are still some who think the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was justified". Isn't that incredible?!  The implication is quite clear, that the great majority of people are of the considered opinion that the bombing was not justified. It also carries with it the insinuation that only a small number of people, who evidently haven't thought this through properly or are perhaps incapable of doing so, are being left behind by the 'moral majority' who understand Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified.
-- I wonder how many others listening to that newscast recognized the subtle propaganda in that item? I wonder on what statistics they based that statement? How many people in the world today have studied the situation which obtained in mid-1945, as American forces approached the Japanese mainland? How many understand the mindset of the Japanese leadership and the Japanese people at that time? How many have soberly weighed up the possibilities, the pros and cons of that terrible decision, and come to a rational conclusion about whether it caused more suffering or less, in absolute terms? And how many of those who have considered it, understand how much clearer everything is in retrospect and how easy it is to sit in judgment when you have the perspective of 60 years of subsequent history to help you?
-- This is just one, small, subtle example of the kind of degradation of journalistic standards I'm talking about. It's not just reporting the facts as the journalist gathers them any more, it's politically slanted statements designed to manipulate how we think.
-- In this case, it was designed to sway people to believe the A-bombs on Japan were definitely and categorically unjustifiable, when the whole episode is still subject to debate among those in a position to understand it properly. It's not an unequivocal past evil by the U.S., as that T.V. network would have us believe, but an open question. And it should be treated as such.
-- Today, in publications like The New York Times and many others, the terminology used is carefully designed to lend the murderous Islamo-fascist thugs in Iraq a subtle air of legitimacy, as Steven Vincent reported.

Bill.
You ask if I "believe" Vincent's account of British troops arming and training the wrong people is true. I don't know. But I have no reason to doubt the man and he's probably 'calling it as he sees it'. There's no question in my mind that all sorts of mistakes have been made in Iraq and will continue to be made but we won't know the final outcome until it's all over.

-- My point wasn't to beatify Steven Vincent but to utilize his eloquent report, about the subtle use of terminology by the liberal left to control our thoughts, to illustrate something I know to be true - because I see it every day on my television set and in newspapers. The liberal left, who seem to me to have an unusually strong representation among journalists and, at least in Australia, among lawyers (no offence, Bill), are infiltrating every aspect of society and acquiring a firm grip on our 'short and curlies'.
-- And one of their most potent weapons is this ingenious but devious recourse to a kind of subliminal wordplay.

-- Watch for it in the media. It's definitely there and it's not hard to spot once you know what to look for. Steven Vincent and I are in agreement on at least that much, which was my main point. 

Oops!
I almost missed it!! :oops:

Hope you had an exceptionally pleasant day, Josh.
MANY HAPPY RETURNS!!!

[P.S. I think I preferred the old array of emoticons. For example, the present 'laugh' emoticon looks like it's poking fun at someone. And the rock band we had is obviously missed. Any chance of getting the old ones back? :?: ]

Bill:-

CM:-

Bill:-

I've noticed, Bill, that there is a tendency in your contributions to harp constantly on negative news about the things it suits you to criticize. This, of course, is the art of debate - to undermine the case of the 'opposition'.
-- But I notice, also, that you use a 'hit-and-run' strategy of quotes from internet sites, which always stress the worst aspects of situations (such as, but not only, the liberation of Iraq) and tend to leave many of us in a depressed frame of mind.

This persistent emphasis, as I read it, on negativity and the hopelessness of everything is unhealthy and I fear for your well-being. For some time I assumed it was all part of a strategy you were using quite deliberately (and legitimately) to denigrate the American Republican Party and capitalism (or mercantilism) in general, and George W. Bush in particular.
-- But the above revelation, by CM, that the negative statistics you drop into these threads are not necessarily accurate, reveals that perhaps you are inadvertently being tainted by the same depressing negativity you use as a debating measure. i.e. Perhaps you are coming to believe some of the stuff you pick up at websites you visit, without checking the details (?).

Just a few observations from a concerned onlooker.  :?:

I'm not sure if this reference has already been posted by someone else (apologies if it has):-
Methane]http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn7775--methane-on-mars-the-plot-thickens.htmlurl]"Methane on Mars: the plot thickens."

A quote or three for the temporally challenged:-

So, the enigma of Martian methane lives on! 
However, it's interesting that at least one or two scientists are sceptical that there's any methane there at all! And it seems there is a perfectly consistent explanation involving geological sources of the gas.
-- Even if Mars is sterile (something I doubt, but a better situation for terraformers anyhow), the alternative hypothesis of magma below the surface is also fascinating because, according to the 'Mars-lost-its-internal-heat-eons-ago' current wisdom, volcanic activity ought to be non-existent today.

I can't wait for the next instalment in this exciting story!     :!:

Bill:-

Good points, Bill, and you've demonstrated one can analyze this enormous subject down into an infinite array of smaller tricky questions; thus getting bogged down in the minutiae of history. And what is history? (I think we could get bogged down in that one, too!  )
-- Nevertheless - and perhaps my point wasn't made clearly enough - as I understand it, and compared to other countries, America has generally expected its citizens to look after themselves. 20th century America isn't famous, as far as I'm aware, for a broad-based welfare safety net and universal 'free' medical care.

Again, as I understand it, there are powerful forces trying to push the U.S. along the path to greater welfare - including government funded healthcare. And, as I said, I believe this is a noble cause in principle. But past experience tells us that once a country starts down that road, its economic performance begins to falter and it marks the beginning of the end of any dominance it may have enjoyed.
-- That's O.K.!  The U.S. is your country, not mine, and it's certainly not the end of the world for any of us. And there'll always be another country to take America's place as the economic powerhouse and drive the world's economy forward. It's an ongoing process we've seen countless times, going back to ancient Mesopotamia and forward through dominant empires like Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome etc. In modern times, of course, the mantle of supremacy tends to be passed on economically, rather than by military invasion. But the end result is similar.

I just happen to think a move toward more welfare will be the catalyst that ultimately brings America's economy down, that's all. Not because there's anything wrong with a more egalitarian system - my instincts lean quite strongly toward socialism - but because there's something wrong with us! Many, if not most, human beings are incapable of controlling their basic laziness and greed. They will take unfair advantage of a system designed to help those who need help, and the politicians will take advantage of that trend to buy themselves power.

It's just always been that way and it probably always will be.   

-- As I understand it, there are different ways of looking at how a Higgs Boson imparts mass to an object. I believe one way is to imagine a universal sea of these strange particles which interact with matter when you try to accelerate it - perhaps somewhat like glue (not a great analogy in many ways, I'm sure, but just for illustrative purposes).
-- The more you try to accelerate the object, the more the Higgs Bosons 'drag' on it, which might account for the increase in mass when you accelerate an object to relativistic speeds (?).

-- But there are particles of matter which barely interact with other matter at all and which have virtually no mass, which indicates they hardly interact with Higgs Bosons either. I'm talking about neutrinos, of course.
-- Once we understand Higgs Bosons and how they interact with matter [presumably via messenger particles, as all other interactions are mediated (?)], perhaps we will be able to understand how neutrinos largely avoid such interaction. Thence, we may be able to emulate the neutrino and somehow 'switch off' the mechanism whereby the Higgs Boson 'drags' on matter.

-- If so, we may be able to accelerate a spaceship and perform presently inconceivable manoeuvres with the barest minimum of force. A lot like the reported capabilities of UFOs, in fact ....
                                                            Hmmm!  :idea:   

Good heavens, Tholzel!
Your English is just sooo good it never even occurred to me to question your linguistic origins. You have every right to be proud of your fluency, considering your command of English is superior to at least half the people I know who claim it as their first language!  :!:

I congratulate you. 

Many Happy Returns of the day, Dicktice!   

(Don't be perturbed about the imminent prospect of having to adjust to middle age; change is a natural part of life. I've recently made the transition to late youth, myself, and it's fine once you get used to it!  )

Getting back to the point of this thread, which I confess I was partly responsible for side-tracking [ :oops: ], here's Cindy's original question again:-

I think it depends on the size of the colony to some extent, and whether the colonists want the ice just for their immediate needs, like drinking, washing, and perhaps splitting off the oxygen for breathing, or whether they want to set up a large propellant factory.

Many scientists believe the icy polar regions of Mars may be the best place to look for life because they're the latitudes where the existence of water, albeit in the solid phase, is an established fact (as a brilliant photo like this one demonstrates so well). It's conceivable some of the first crewed missions might be sent to regions like this for precisely those reasons - the certainty of finding water and the possibility of detecting life.
If so, initially the astronauts may be content to cut out chunks of the ice and carry them back into the Hab through the airlock, where it can be melted into containers. i.e. The simple low-tech solution! 

-- If you want a larger industrial method of utilizing the ice, the ideal way would be to seal off a large area of the ice deposit under a pressurized dome. But raising the pressure too high under that dome brings problems with the very large forces exerted, which tend to rip the dome from its foundations. Fortunately, you wouldn't have to raise the pressure very high under the dome to allow the ice to melt and remain liquid - perhaps only 15 millibars above ambient would be plenty. This translates into about 150 kgs per sq. metre of ice surface enclosed. If your dome is, say, 20 metres across, the amount of upward force on the dome would only be some 47 tonnes.
-- With a perimeter of about 628 metres, that means each metre of the dome skirt would only need to resist an upward force of about 75 kilograms. I think this could be achieved by melting the skirt into the ice using a localized heat source and then allowing the intense Martian cold to re-freeze it.
-- Under the dome, astronauts in spacesuits could use solar energy to melt the surface ice, creating pools, and pump the precious liquid through insulated pipes into holding tanks inside the colony, or to wherever else it's required. 

Excellent! 
Such a pity the MERs don't have something like this in their exploration armoury right now. Ah well, maybe next time. 

Hi Tholzel.
This part of your recent post interests me:-

I understand your point and I'm familiar with the "White Mars" hypothesis, which was championed by Dr. Nick Hoffman, a fellow Australian. But I think I detect a flaw in your logic.
You correctly state that the lack of craters on Martian alluvial plains indicates a young surface but you then make the jump to a CO2 mediated cause for the features rather than aqueous. The dearth of craters means the surface is probably 'only' some 5-10 million years old; it doesn't mean they were formed last weekend. Events involving the flow of water could certainly have occurred in the last few million years on Mars. Our knowledge of past climate swings on the Red Planet is woefully lacking and, for all we know, episodes of raised atmospheric pressure, together with accompanying temperatures considerably higher than those we see today, may happen on a regular basis. Large numbers of strata in sedimentary material and polar ice are evidence of the kind of frequent swings in climate I'm talking about. And crater-free wind-sculpted dunes in the Olympus caldera, at an altitude of 27 kilometres above datum, seem to be telling us that Mars' atmospheric pressure has been very much higher in relatively recent times than it is today.
All this indicates that recent fluvial events are not only possible but even highly probable on Mars. In fact, many craters and slopes today show strong signs of active flows of what is most likely briny water.

Given the highly specialized circumstances under which liquid CO2 could be responsible for the features you speak of, and given the good evidence for recent conditions conducive to water erosion events, CO2 is not required as an erosional agent and is, indeed, very much more unlikely than water to have been such an agent.

I strongly agree with RobS that Occam's Razor falls heavily on the CO2 hypothesis for the reasons I've outlined above. In my opinion, it's an exotic solution which the problem doesn't call for. 

Commodore:-

Yeah, well, you may be right - though I still think there's at least microbial life in the subsurface. But, being a terraformer, and knowing the power of the 'green' lobby, we'd be better off if Mars turns out to be sterile.
Either way, it'll be interesting.
What am I saying?! ... Anything to do with Mars is interesting!!