 |
|
mart7x5
|
|
I propose to modify thread title:
Sid Meier Interview AND Planetology
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
 |
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
There's plenty of carbon on Mars. As well as water ice. But, for a permanent human colony of significant size, we'll probably want to ship in more water ice for our own convienence.
Travel time is going to create a poorly conditioned human. When you get into 0-G you immediately start to lose bone density, muscle mass, etc etc etc.
We only need gravity for reproduction. Everything else works fairly well in micro-gravity. Indeed, humans adapt readily to being in micro-gravity.
I know about carbon nanotubes. My point was that you were implying they are up on the moon. That's not true. There's only one material that they naturally occur in (coal), and I've never read of that natural source being found on the moon. Of course, we could manufacture them on-site. But current manufacturing of carbon nano-tubes require a lot of material that is not found at all on the Moon. So where are you going to get that material? The only significant source known for that would be the Earth. That's true for most of the known ways to make the various Nano I am familar with. Meaning that Nano cannot be made on-site (unless trading/supplied by Earth). You know what that means? That means we will instead make the Nano on Earth, and ship that up, as it will be cheaper. Remember, economics is always the final determiner of what is sustainable.
Mars will be colonized long before Venus. It's easier for us to handle. It is easier to survive. It is easier to get up and down from the surface. Maintenance will be eaiser. And if we really want to bring in material, it will be cheap to go out and harvest material from the asteriod belt and bring it to Mars, unlike Venus, where we will only have the tiny inner asteriods, the rare and odd passing comet, local material, or shipping it in from Earth.
Venus will, in the significantly far future, make a better world for us (as we exist as a species today). But that can only happen once we can economically handle its current conditions. Until then, Mars is our best bet, outside of the Earth-Luna local space, as we can handle it economically now. The cost to reach Mars or Venus is close enough not to make a difference. And being that far out from Home means that the cost of any manned mission supporting itself will be the same. But the cost of operating on Mars is currently economical. Venus isn't. That is what will determine where we go in the next 50 years.
Of course, if we can get a significant amout of nuclear power into space, then we could operate pretty well off of Ceres. It is a small rocky core with a huge amount of water ice. If you want to split H2O for Oxy and Fuel, that's a site. Presuming we can get enough power on site to begin the process.  But, by the time we actually get that far out, our solar cells may have progressed to the point that they could be an effective power harvestor at that distance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
I assume you fine gents have read Robinson’s Mars trilogy? This is essentially a SF story wrapped around hard science (terraforming, space elevators, inter-system space ships, etc), with a little judicious speculation. Or is it the other way around?
My personal opinion is that humanity is perilously close to never making into space in a serious way. The USA is the only entity with the resources or will to mount a serious space program (but that may change if the EU gets its act together or China doesn’t implode), and we’ve wasted 30 years with political bickering, underfunding, changing goal posts, posturing, vast public apathy, and a looming fiscal implosion that will likely derail any future efforts at space travel. That’s a terrible combination. Bush’s current plans to go back to the moon and then Mars sound like a replay of his father’s earnest promises of 1990 – which were all empty. Poor NASA is a repository for political pork and a well meaning if numbed bureaucracy. Make more with less, faster-better-cheaper – more accurately, this is slow starvation.
It would be very sad to have a few NASA space probes be humanity’s epitaph.
Hydro
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darsnan
|
 |
New Syracuse, Beta Prime
Dec 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
I assume you fine gents have read Robinson’s Mars trilogy? This is essentially a SF story wrapped around hard science (terraforming, space elevators, inter-system space ships, etc), with a little judicious speculation. Or is it the other way around? |
I always liked Spider's work over Kim Stanley's ("Overdose" was a classic of its, uh, "genre?"  ).
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
The USA ... wasted 30 years with political bickering, underfunding, changing goal posts, posturing, vast public apathy, and a looming fiscal implosion that will likely derail any future efforts at space travel. |
I wonder if individuals in other societies thought similarly as the sun set on their state's empires? It may just be that the mantle of civilization is passing from the US to another state.
Regardless, I agree that more could be done, both in NASA as well as the US in general.
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
It would be very sad to have a few NASA space probes be humanity’s epitaph.
|
Amen....
D
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
I think that large part of the problem is in that majority of people dislike things that are alien/new. Look how many copies of civilization are sold, and how many of SMACX? There is also something like stereotype of a person that looks into stars as someone detached from reality.
In fact, those who dislike science-fiction, in my oppinion do not know how much they loose and how much they are in fact limited in their thinking. As a person working at the university I had opportunity to listen to comments addressed to scientists, that they are slackers taking advantage of the hard working people. I comment back, that if someone does not like what science brings, then stop watching tv, stop driving your car, make yourself a bow with some mamoth ligaments and go hunting. Knowing, that such attempts were made by people actually knowledgable in the art of surviving in the wild, I think many of them would die quickly. The similar mechanism is for space exploration.
I often hear, space exploration is waste of money. Columbus had also a lot of troubles with getting money for his trip to India using that "insane" alternative route. Today millions of European descendants are happy living in both Americas. Well, go back to Europe if you dislike exploration. At least Native Americans would have a chance to develop their own culture. If someone could make a list of benefits that satellites on Earth's orbit gave us already, most of the people would be surprised.
I think it is not a problem of countries or governments. It is sociological problem, that majority of people are in fact afraid to explore. Much like Morganic citizens, they like living in luxury and be safe. I think every society has it. And it is more like a chance, that some mainly political factors or simple race to wealth decide about exploration. Columbus was a kinda strange. He was fueled by wish to be wealthy, however, he was not afraid to explore. Notice that majority of people were at that time prefering known routs. Investment was more safe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PJayTycy
|
|
Human space travel is not so important. What can a human do in space at the current time ?
-> Looking out of the window a bit
-> Repairing whatever components of his space station / shuttle are broken
Sattelites, telescopes (like Hubble) and robots (like the mars rovers) are much more important now. They can collect more data than any human in space, they don't mind if they get sent in space and don't return, they can be returned for examination with more ease than a human...
Why do we need humans in space now? It's a lot more expensive and you get less usefull information.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PJayTycy
|
|
quote:
if we're ever come to the point that zero gee industrial processes will be common, there will be a larger need for repair 'crew' upthere and to ferry cargo back down. |
Yes, that's why I added "now" to my sentence. At this moment, no humans are needed in space. Ofcourse, a repair flight to Hubble is OK, but just having humans in earth orbit for the sake of having a human in space is useless.
quote:
And what do you mean with less usefull information coming from space? Offen techniques tested there are groundbreaking for new developments on Earth. |
I meant that those rovers on mars can give us a lot more info about Mars than any human could if we sent one there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
|
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Hydro, we are going. So don't panic! The commercial sector is approaching critical mass. Finally! So, unless something very unlikely comes along to stop it, we should have commercial services and tourists locations in orbit and possibly on the Moon.
PJayTycy, I'm afraid you've bought into that whole "humans suck" proproganda. The truth is that if we had sent actual geologists to Mars, we'd have gotten 100 million times more science back then the rovers. There's just so many things that the rovers cannot do. Like turn over a rock. That's a very simple, very basic sort of thing that geologists actually do.
Probes are nice for suicide missions. But most robotic probes cannot collect better science, faster, then a human doing the job. There's just a few instances where a human cannot match a probe, such as automated sky searches. We just aren't that advanced yet with our robotics and on-board software. We've got hundreds of years of human-instramentation and human-observationg collecting science. We've barely got a few decades in with robotic probes.
The problem is that the majority of people think that space is a waste. Why do they think it is a waste? Because they cannot go there themselves. They do not see their idols going there. Space is like deep ocean research to the public. Just a waste of money that could be better spent on subsidizing their viagra prescriptions. When the world's social Elite start living or at least vacationing in orbital and Luna properties, then they'll think space is the best. Until then, we have to soilder on.
Actually, the US does share its info, and quite well. Ask the Russians we work with. Now, during the Space Race, of course they didn't. But then, the space race was about demonstrating how good your rocketry was, and how well you could launch something heavy, like say, a nuclear bomb, into any orbit of your choosing, and have that payload come down whenever and wherever you like. I cannot imagine how people could be so selfish though and not share that sort of science at the time. Imagine, if the Axis and Allies had just cooperated and shared all their research, we could be half a century advanced now! We could be living on Mars already!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PJayTycy
|
|
About the rovers <=> humans: ofcourse, if could send real laboratories, a lot of supplies, a vehicle and a few geologists to Mars, they would gather more info than the rovers did now.
The point I wanted to make however is about what we can do now. We can send rovers to explore mars because we don't have to worry about them ever coming back. The furthest away humans can go at the moment is the moon. I just think we can learn more at this moment from satelites and unmanned probes than from a few people orbitting the earth in the ISS or walking on the moon.
Maybe, I'm a little sceptical because I don't see them really building something there. If they really pull it off to create a permanent selfsustaining moon-base, that would be very cool, but I just don't see it happening.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2005 07:56
|