New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Not So Free Chat » What I love about the United States » 2006-03-05 11:30:10

Probably the thing I like most about America is our Constitution. Even when the government is messing everything up and the people seem to be blindly following them, you can still look at that old document and see that we started off on the right foot and gave the world something very valuable and powerful and may yet have a chance to recover if we start paying attention to the ideals of freedom and democracy and government checks and balances that we were founded on. Sorry if that isn't as postive as you like. The point is that I have very little respect for the current government, but quite a lot of respect for the constitution.

#2 Re: Human missions » there's so much knowledge, » 2006-02-13 17:03:23

once we figure out gravity we can use it to explore the universe.

How do you know? We haven't figured it out yet.

We will quite possibly explore the universe with things we have not yet even begun to dream of.

#3 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » hypersonic » 2006-02-08 17:24:34

I hate to ask this question, but how much do you think it would cost for NASA to develop and build a scramjet spaceplane such as the one you outline?

#4 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Should God be Exported to Mars? » 2006-02-05 19:57:31

This cartoon thing is crazy. Getting insulted is part of life. I've always felt that Americans don't do very well with it, because too many will make a big deal over a single comment or even sue over this kind of thing. But that's nothing compared to burning an embassy and threatening genocide. Sure the cartoon was insulting and in very poor taste, but it didn't actually hurt anyone. These people also really need to realize that the actions of an independent Danish newspaper can not be blamed on the Danish government or people or on the European Union.

#5 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » hypersonic » 2006-02-04 20:43:39

I am glad that someone is finally working on a scramjet, but it bugs me that it's the military. If NASA wanted to do this, people would say it was too expensive or otherwise not worth it. But when the airforce says they need it to keep us safe (a claim that is usually successful without even basic justification), noone complains. The actual military use of this thing seems doubtful, as others have already said. Sure it could be useful, but it has limited applications, most of which can be achieved with other things, and is only necessary against an adversary at a tech level similar to our own. The benefits of civilian use, on the other hand, could be much greater. Easier access to space is the most obvios and most important. Even if this vehicle couldn't put a payload into orbit, it's certainly on the right track to do so. Furthermore, it might be useful for more traditional aviation uses, such as passenger or cargo delivery, if really fast delivery was necessary or was desired by someone who could pay for it.

If the army does build this thing, I certainly hope they don't cover it up. To me it seems inexcusable that the military will spend taxpayer money to build something, and then not let us know it exists, even when it could have civilian uses. Sure the military needs to keep some secrets, but it keeps a lot more than it needs to I think. It would be horrible if the air-force was flying these things around, without even being in a war where they would be needed, and NASA was still flying on disposable rockets. Any technology developed and any knowledge gained should be shared in full with NASA, and vehicles using the tech should be built for space use. We need a scramjet to get to space a heck of a lot more than we need it for "defense." Yet  it's always the military who get to spend ridiculous sums on things that might potentially be useful to someone, somewhere, sometime in the hypothetical future.

#6 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon » 2006-01-26 11:47:12

I think this is a ridiculous supposition. Any civilization capable of large scale interstellar travel would have to be centuries if not millennia ahead of us. Asking us to help them would be like the Kiwis asking for help from the penguins against the Japanese.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Most militaries can use more people since they tend to go through them pretty quickly. Assuming that the aliens are about as intelligent as humans, we will simply be untrained but not innately less capable. Therefore they may see a need to train us and give us access to weapons and spaceships. Of course it's most likely that they'd discriminate somewhat, using humans only as infantry and not as commanders. I don't expect humanity to turn the tide of an intergalactic war, but it's not impossible that someone would want us as one more ally. Of course this is all extremely far-fetched, not something we should actually be worrying about, but I think it makes an interesting thing to think about anyway.

#7 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potlock I » 2006-01-22 11:01:54

Ahmedinejad talks about "wiping Israel off the map," but I do not expect him to actually attack them. Presumably he understands that to do so would be essentially suicidal. America and other nations would come to the defense of Israel if it were attacked, and against them Iran would have no chance. Given that Iran struck first and that defeat was assured, the other Arab nations would be reluctant to join it. Thus Iran is more likely to talk big than actually start anything.

The other war scenario is that Israel attacks Iran first. Fearing for its safety, it might attempt such preempive action. It would, however, only do so if it was confident that it would have American support in the ensuing war, and it might even ask for explicit American approval before acting. If Israel did strike first, America would certainly not be obligated to come to its defense and would not even be necessarily justified. In such a scenario the Arab nations would come to Iran's defense. Other nations would probably not help Iran, but they would be reluctant to help Israel either.

In a war America has the power to decide which side wins. In order to come to a peaceful resolution, we must make it clear that we will not condone or tolerate military action by any nation, admittedly not a position we have much moral authority to take, but still one we have the military power to take if our leaders will once again remember the responsibility that comes with power. To Iran we must make it clear that an attack on Israel will lead to their own destruction. To Israel we must emphasize that our support for their sovereignty does not give them carte blanche by virtue of our power, and we do not guarantee any assistance in a mess of their own making.[/tex]

#8 Re: Not So Free Chat » I'll take malaprops for *5* Bob - Apropos of Nothing continues. . . » 2006-01-21 20:41:56

Any thing under 90 degrees is cool for me.

I'm sure it's quite nice if you like a hot climate, but being more of a cooler weather person I'm glad I don't live in Arizona. When it gets over 90 in the summer in New England is when I think it's really getting too hot. I like 70s and 80s in the summer and cold enough for snow in the winter. We haven't gotten much snow this year, though. Right now it feels like April, not the middle of January. I was going to go skiing last Sunday, but it rained. I want snow!!!

#9 Re: Not So Free Chat » Political Potlock I » 2006-01-21 20:18:57

Commodore, you seem to think that a war with Iran is likely, even inevitable. While it is possible, I do not think that it is very likely, and I do not think that we should be resigned to it, since that makes it more likely. Even the hawks currently in power in our (American) government are playing down the possibility or war. As much as American, Europe, Russia, China, and Iran disagree, none of them, I think, wants a war over this. Iran wants to thumb its nose at the West, but it does so in the realization that we will not attack in response to insults and snubs only. Ahmedinejad is trying to see how much he can get away with, but if he sees that he has gone too far, I think that he will back off quickly.

Suspected development of nuclear weapons is not reason enough for war. In all circumstances, and especially when we are already in a war, we do not want to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary. It would only be necessary and, in my opinion, justified if Iran actually attacked someone, most likely Israel, but I do not think that it is likely that it will do this given that it knows that that would result in its own ultimate destruction.

There is a strong suppressed movement for reform, even democracy, in Iran. But the Iranians are united in their opposition to American interference in their affairs. Thus they would be united against an American invasion. There are some interesting similarities between America and Iran really. Both are led by a conservative president who doesn't get along well with other countries; both have significant opposition to the policies of this leader; but the populations of both will unite in the face of a threat to their nation and their sovereignty. If American troops march into Terahn, they will not be greeted as liberators. Likely the situation would prove much like the quagmire in Iraq, only worse.

An invasion of Iran would not be taken well by the American people unless Iran had struck first. It would almost certainly necessitate a draft, something which worries me and which would lead to Vietnam-like protests and divisions in the nation. It would also be opposed abroad, hardening the hatred of our enemies and alienating our friends. If Iran does have nuclear weapons, the results could be disastrous.

We may have to accept Iran as a nuclear nation, and potentially a cold war type standoff could develop, although more likely it would be a grudging acceptance as with China or Pakistan. Still, no first strike is the best policy in a nuclear confrontation, and making a few concessions is better than fighting Vietnam II or even WWIII.

Sorry for the long post.

#10 Re: Civilization and Culture » So what about Mars is appealing to you? » 2006-01-21 11:06:07

What I am talking about is forming a community of like-minded individuals who share a common set of values and act in a manner agreeable to all not because they're forced to but because they choose to.

Certainly many of us would like to live in a community of like-minded individuals, but ultimately I don't think it would seem much different than the ordinary life on Earth. People will not agree 100% on everything. (I'm not sure that this is what you're suggesting anyway, but I think it is what some people envision.) If you establish a colony based on a philosophy specific to one area (such as environmentalism, militarism, capitalism, etc.) you will find that the members disagree on other issues. Thinking otherwise would be like thinking that Americans are all on the same page because they (almost) all support the democratic-republic for their system of government. On the other hand, if you establish a colony based on a general philosophy (such as liberalism, conservatism, or a religion) you will find that people interpret things differently or, while accepting most of the philosophy, disagree with a few points of it.

Mars will certainly provide a unique opportunity to try out new types of societies, and I think that is an exciting prospect, but I don't believe that we'll get any sort of utopia. People disagreeing is an inevitable part of society, and I think it's really a good thing anyway.

#11 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-18 16:54:37

Instead, lets invade Mexico, pocket the profits from that endeavor and use them to fund a vacation trip to Mars.

A president who did that would probably need to go to Mars afterwards to escape with his life. The American people would remove him, by impeachment if possible and revolution if necessary, and if America actually invaded Mexico, the world would come  to their defense and America, mighty as it is, would fail.

#12 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon » 2006-01-16 14:51:06

On the other hand, independent alien nation states could always use some new members of the Coalition of the Willing, *especially* if they are fanatical-tending territorial killer apes.

An interesting question then is: Would we join them?

Suppose an alien civilization contacted us and said they'd give us their propulsion and other technology and make us a spacefaring civilization with an equal standing among all the planets in they're aliance/federation/whatever if we'd help them wipe out the other big spacefaring civilization/coalition. Would we take the risk? Would the morality of they're cause matter? Would we go for or against it as a planet or make separate decisions as nations? Would one nation such as U.S. or China attempt to win the aliens' favor and gain dominion over Earth.

#13 Re: Not So Free Chat » Alien footage? » 2006-01-16 14:27:34

Physical makeup of the beings is consisting of pale wrinkled skin and claw-like hands having three-fingers. They making horrifying surgical techniques that are contradicting our understanding of physics, biology, and medical sciences.

Sounds awfully cliche to me. Frauds need to get more creative if they're going to continue to be entertaining.

#14 Re: Not So Free Chat » Who would you like to see debating each other? » 2006-01-13 16:13:12

George Bush and Teddy Roosevelt

That would be great. I'm sure Teddy would win.

Wilson and Bush might also be interesting, since, although the circumstances were very differernt, both went to war with claims (more sincere in Wilson's case I think) of wanting to liberate people, protect democracy, and establish peace. I'd like to see if Wilson would support this war too.

#15 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-13 15:49:29

Invading Mexico, besides being wrong by almost any halfway decent moral code, would not get us farther towards space. It would put us back. Mexico certainly has a lot of problems, but I doubt we could solve them, at least not overnight. It would take decades during which our money would all be going south not up. It would create a culturally and economically divided nation. We would no longer have a common national language, and I doubt old Americans and newly annexed Mexicans would feel like members of the same country. There is no money saved in this scheme, and no Mars colony built.

Not that it's of much importance, but when I earlier refrenced Zeno's paradox I was actually thinking of another very similar one involving a soldier running incrementally from an arrow, and my only point was that infinite division isn't really infinite.

#16 Re: Not So Free Chat » Uh.. I thought we were going to Mars within the Decade ? » 2006-01-11 17:08:39

One of the best educational experiences I ever had was my 8th grade Algebra teacher, (Mr. DeMuth) when he told us about how another way of looking at infinity was by perpetually dividing the distance between two points (such as the distance between yourself and a wall) in half. As long as you only moved halfway between yourself and the wall, you would NEVER actually get there.

Sounds kind of like Zeno's Paradox, but technically it doesn't work. I don't understand it exactly, but ultimately something like that has a finite sum. (I'm taking calculus next year and looking forward to it, so I'll hopefully understand this infinite series stuff better then.)

I could also turn the analogy around and say: You never get quite what you wanted, but if you keep trying hard and putting a bit more work into it you'll get most of what you were aiming for and it will be well worth the effort.

I agree that we should be moving a lot faster on space exploration and could be a lot farther by now, but I don't think Mexicans are the problem. There are a lot of things that eat up our government money, with perhaps the biggest of them being general bureucratic inefficiency.

#17 Re: Not So Free Chat » What I Hate About The United States » 2006-01-08 11:19:12

We need to ask ourselves do we want what will be the end result of there vision.

Very true. And we should also ask if the end result will be what they say it will be. For example, Lenin sold the Russian people a vision of a classless society in which they all work for the common good and are equal. But instead they got a brutal dictatorship. Many people have grandiose visions, but I will be very careful in choosing to follow any of them.

#18 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Gravity speed experiment » 2006-01-03 16:37:36

Does Jupiter have any measurable affect on the tides that can be distinguished from the rest of the tide? I believe the moon is the main cause of tides on Earth. Also, is the speed of gravitational interaction not known? I'd always kind of assumed it was lightspeed I guess, but I'm not sure I had any reason for that. I wouldn't be surprised if there's already been some experiment to measue it, though.

#19 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Rights or Duties » 2006-01-02 20:01:58

It has to be a good balance of rights and duties. In terms of government, the people have a right to establish the government that they want and to be a part of that government (as by voting). The government has the responsibility of protecting people's rights, and people have the duty to protect their and each other's rights. They have a duty to work for the good of the colony (not meant in a communist sense). They have rights to speech, religion, etc. but not to, say, turn off the oxygen supply. Basically, gov't should protect everybody's rights and manage communal resources (such as keeping dome pressurized with a supply of O2), and people have a duty their colony. When everyone does their duty, everyone has their rights. In practice, of course, you have problems, so you need law enforcement and such to protect rights and enforce duties as much as is possible in an imperfect world.

#20 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Solar Sails » 2005-12-31 20:49:51

How much capability to explore once it gets there would it be practical to give the probe? Ideally it would not just settle into a single orbit and take pictures from there, but rather find planets and other bodies and study them. Probably once it got to the edge of the other solar system, it would start looking for interesting objects. When it found one, it would either do a flyby or enter orbit. Then it would progress further in towards the star and look for more things to study. It would want to concentrate on planets, but could also spend some time on asteroids, moons, or any other interesting objects it might find. It would also need to determine how interesting a body was likely to be to the humans back on Earth so it knew how much time to spend there. It would also figure out what instruments were best to study each body.

There are two main difficulties for this. One is that it needs advanced artificial intelligence to figure out what to do. The other is that it needs the power to move around quite a bit. The ion engines would certainly be crucial for this, but would they be enough? Could it be programmed to make gravity assists with whatever planets it may find? I think I may have too high expectations, I'm just thinking of what would be ideal. Does anyone know what would be realistic with current or near future technology?

#21 Re: Not So Free Chat » What I Hate About The United States » 2005-12-25 11:51:04

The problem may be lack of an agreed upon vision rather than lack of any vision. Many people have visions for the future, but they concentrate on different things. When I dream of what I think the future should be like, I tend to think of a high-tech, space traveling civilization. But other people concentrate on other important issues, such as eliminating poverty, protecting the environment, protecting human rights, etc. People disagree about what's the right future, even among the space advocacy community.

It is important to think "big," and I agree there are too many people who aren't doing that. But there are also plenty who are. They just aren't united in one singular purpose, so they aren't going to make one spectacular accomplishment immediately. And if they did, a lot of other essential things would be neglected.

#22 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » There is no Moon » 2005-11-19 19:50:28

Understanding that which imprisons us allows us to know where the door is.

I like that quote a lot, even though I don't agree with most of what precedes it.

#23 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Kansas: 1400-lb Meteor Found » 2005-11-13 19:27:55

I believe it was part of a larger asteroid that came apart after entry so it just buried itself.

Why would being part of a larger asteroid make it less likely form a crater? It would still hit with a lot of force.

#24 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » what do you think aliens would look like? - like what color, how tall.....etc. » 2005-11-05 11:30:04

Even if you restarted the development of life on Earth with the exact same conditions, you would end up with very different species. This is because the mutations that drive evolution are random. Thus humans would almost certainly not develop even on a planet witht he exact same conditions as Earth. And alien planets will be very different. Thus aliens will be very different.

#25 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Space Ring to Stop Global Warming? » 2005-10-31 19:51:47

Wow that much ice cap shrinkage...

And there is more with the effects of global warming that shows up as a result as a cascading effect on the land, vegetation, animals, weather and human systems as well.

With all the evidence of change, especially in the arctic, it's crazy that we still have people denying global warming.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB