26-07-2002 02:32									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael Not quite, Mobius. We just suddenly have the ability to see how crowded it is. We're doomed. Doomed I tell you, DOOMED!!

"I'm gonna sing the doom song!" -Gir.

	26-07-2002 05:35									#152
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS While I might not exactly be a Mars Geology expert, why do you consider that it is nothing but a barren rock? It's not like we've really been able to directly examine much more than a few square metres of it's surface Why should it not have as complex a make up as Earth?

I didn't mean to suggest that Mars was just a desert wasteland (which it certainly isn't) - rather that any attempt to locate/exploit any mineral wealth will have to be an extremely long-term project.

Consider - lack of basic fundamental resources - have to import food supplies, oxygen, water ...
While it may eventually become possible to synthesize/extract certain quantities of these from the red planet, a colony could not count on it - not for a very long time.

- basic infrastructure - or rather lack thereof. To support a dedicated exploration/mining colony you'll need maintainance. transportation, refining, ... the list goes on and on - all taken for granted and readily available during similar terrestrial excursions but all of which would have to be imported/supported on Mars.

- Geology - I'm not an expert on Martian geology either - (There might not be any such thing ) - but it is by all accounts geologically dead. No quakes, crustal movement to speak of - no shifts to bring new mineral veins to the surface, not even any remaining fault lines to point explorers in the right direction.

I think its very worthwhile to set up a small colony or two on Mars, the Moon and the Ocean floor to serve as scientific outposts for further exploration but it'd be a huge mistake to go into it with the purpose of making it profitable. Unrealistic expectations have almost killed space programs before and the absolutely cost factor in both money and resources required to make this one work - before even knowing whether or not there's anything to find - would be a completely unjustified risk IMO.

	26-07-2002 05:42									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

What was that experiemnt called where they had a closed environment? Geodome, or something like that. Now, imagine that technology was applied to mars, but with a nuclear powerplant to power water and air recycling and the like. It would be hard to set up, but the end result would be a colony requiring only a shipment of uranium every few years. And who knows, there may be fissionable material on mars.

	26-07-2002 05:46									#154
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Alas, by the time we could have a self-sufficient colony on Mars, we would be able to deal with any asteroid headed our way

Still, human expansion into space is surely a noble endeavour? It's certainly more ethical to colonise other planets and moons that to transform our entire planet to meet the needs of humans when we should be sharing it with other, existing life forms. I say we go with it

The crucial requirement to colonising other stellar bodies is the promise of financial independency. I've read much of H.G. Wells' work, and his foresight collapsed to farcical wishful thinking whenever he failed to take into account financial considerations. People will only invest money in something when there's the promise of long term rewards. Mars or the moon will have to have something worth mining or some other potential industry to ever be successfully colonised. You know, I'm sure Britain never intended to support Australia forever! NASA's Mars Odyssey mission is identifying potential landing areas for basic exploration as we speak. An eventual landing will hopefully identify available resources and potential colony sites, so the potential of a Mars colony is certainly realistic.

	26-07-2002 08:17									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by ravagon I didn't mean to suggest that Mars was just a desert wasteland (which it certainly isn't) - rather that any attempt to locate/exploit any mineral wealth will have to be an extremely long-term project.

I think that's the whole point - hopefully we'll see a manned mission to Mars in our lifetime, but for all these things we're talking tens of decades. This is a long term project, especially if we consider trying to terraform the place!

What I'm talking about is using our solar system as an ongoing lab in which to experiment. Remember, although from a military POV SDI is a colossal waste of time - it has spawned hundreds of inventions/applications for everyday life (laser eye surgery IIRC was a byproduct of work on SDI for example, IIRC)

quote: Consider - lack of basic fundamental resources - have to import food supplies, oxygen, water ... While it may eventually become possible to synthesize/extract certain quantities of these from the red planet, a colony could not count on it - not for a very long time.

Well apparently they are confident the are actually huge reserves of ice on Mars. That's your water, and your Oxygen - and Hydrogen for that matter... You just need a bit of electricity is all. I'm thinking solar power would actually be a way to go, what with Mars' lack of atmosphere to impede the albeit weaker rays of the sun.

quote: basic infrastructure - or rather lack thereof. To support a dedicated exploration/mining colony you'll need maintainance. transportation, refining, ... the list goes on and on - all taken for granted and readily available during similar terrestrial excursions but all of which would have to be imported/supported on Mars.

Well you can save on much of the infrastructure if you go direct to source, but yes, the biggest problem will be resources - as it is as expensive as hell to blast things into space from Earth. Perhaps stage one would be a base on the Moon to mine as many of the resources as possible there (though I'm thinking the Moon is rather barren!).

quote: Geology - I'm not an expert on Martian geology either - (There might not be any such thing ) - but it is by all accounts geologically dead. No quakes, crustal movement to speak of - no shifts to bring new mineral veins to the surface, not even any remaining fault lines to point explorers in the right direction.

The problem is no one has been there to examine Mars 1st hand - for all we know it is rich in minerals, and has it's own clues to give as to where to mine them...

quote: I think its very worthwhile to set up a small colony or two on Mars, the Moon and the Ocean floor to serve as scientific outposts for further exploration but it'd be a huge mistake to go into it with the purpose of making it profitable. Unrealistic expectations have almost killed space programs before and the absolutely cost factor in both money and resources required to make this one work - before even knowing whether or not there's anything to find - would be a completely unjustified risk IMO.

I agree - funny if communism actually worked, we'd have probably already landed on Mars...

But no, we're saddled with capitalism where no one sees any profit in such an endeavour - at least not in the lifetime of the person making the decision...

So very selfish!

Therefore, the point is to find as many other reasons as possible to get us into space, hopefully for profit, or by being able to deflect an asteroid bound for our planet, getting the fat cats to stump up the cash to save their arses!

quote: What was that experiemnt called where they had a closed environment? Geodome, or something like that. Now, imagine that technology was applied to mars, but with a nuclear powerplant to power water and air recycling and the like. It would be hard to set up, but the end result would be a colony requiring only a shipment of uranium every few years. And who knows, there may be fissionable material on mars.

Biosphere 2 in Oracle, AZ. I've been there and been inside - it's awesome! It works too, after a fashion if you don't mind waiting two weeks to grow enough beans for a cup of coffee...

They had eight people in there mostly self sufficient (they did need some outside help) for two years. It's currently run as a campus by Columbia University, who are continuing the experiments and therefore improving it's future effectiveness as an educational facility...

quote: Still, human expansion into space is surely a noble endeavour? It's certainly more ethical to colonise other planets and moons that to transform our entire planet to meet the needs of humans when we should be sharing it with other, existing life forms. I say we go with it

Well the point is if we give it a go, we might find it easier than we think! Remember, we STILL haven't even reached the centenary of Man's first powered flight (as opposed to float ). If we apply ourselves, who's to say what advances we'll make?

Hell, your average new car has more CPU power than the Apollo spacecraft.

None if we don't try!

If I were a smart businessman, with loads of money I would put together some sort of consortium that would have some sort of exclusive rights to any new technology for my financial backing...

	26-07-2002 11:55									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well I don't mind this stone as long as it hits a proper state far enough from my home.

	26-07-2002 17:21									#157
	Opportunity costs Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS What I'm talking about is using our solar system as an ongoing lab in which to experiment. Remember, although from a military POV SDI is a colossal waste of time - it has spawned hundreds of inventions/applications for everyday life (laser eye surgery IIRC was a byproduct of work on SDI for example, IIRC)

I don't like the argument of using spin-off technologies as a justification for a dead end (i.e prohibitively expensive) mission. The money spent could just have easily been directed at other practical technologies to begin with.

	26-07-2002 18:00									#158
	Got spare money?

Right, but you have to count the value of spun-off technologies against the overall cost of mission. If you'd spent on pure R&D, you'd get the tech, but no spaceflight. The question then becomes whether or not the spaceflight alone was worth the additional cost...

	26-07-2002 22:35									#159
	Full PM-box? Change here!

True, but I was thinking along a slightly different line.

I would argue it is cheaper to develop a generic technology and make it specific ( e.g to a space mission), than to make a specific technology that is then made generic.

Hence space missions should only be developed if they are based on emergent technologies, not objective technologies.

	26-07-2002 22:42									#160
	Got spare money?

quote: The question then becomes whether or not the spaceflight alone was worth the additional cost...

That is why I mentioned 'prohibitive' costs. Implicit that the spaceflight was not worth that much. Hence I think the Apollo programme was an unwarranted scientific expense as it is too expensive to capitalise on the Moon landings..

	27-07-2002 15:51									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

So now I have to do everything I'd planned for my life in 17 years!!! Well, I haven't planned that much... I'm probably finished this time next year... Bruce Willis will be an old fart in 2019!

	27-07-2002 16:03									#162
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The problem is, there is no amount of theorizing or modeling that will match up to reality. We do not know what will be required for a long term presence on another world until we actually start to do it.

For an example, just consider where we would be right now if we had to build an 'asteroid mover' in under two decades, but had never done lunar or interplanetary missions, because of the 'worthlessness'.

	27-07-2002 16:15									#163
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by ravagon Current rocket boosters don't have the capability to intercept a target far enough out with the desired accuracy - nor are the guidance packages able to intercept a target moving at that velocity. This could of course change fairly quickly given sufficient need.

How far is far enough? We DO have the accuracy. We had a probe in orbit around an asteroid. Thats good enough for a nuke anyway and we even landed the thing on the asteroid. One nuke won't vaporize the thing of course but I am just pointing out that a rendevous is possible with current technology.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/near.html

	27-07-2002 16:25									#164
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

BTW, I'm getting a real kick out of SD complaining about 'unwarrented scientific expense' in a thread that trumpets why this particular category of expense is indeed warrented...

	27-07-2002 19:38									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

is this the wrath of god?

	27-07-2002 20:18									#166
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I, for one, am really worried. With the experience from NT4, 2000 and XP, it can be expected that this one, too, will cause a lot of damage...

	27-07-2002 23:54									#167
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk BTW, I'm getting a real kick out of SD complaining about 'unwarrented scientific expense' in a thread that trumpets why this particular category of expense is indeed warrented...

How is it warranted. The asteroid is almost certainly not going to hit. We've lasted several thousand years of civilization wthout problems, and statistically we are likely to have many millenia more.

Also, it wasn't a complaint, I just wouldn't approve the funding if I was in charge of the public purse.

	28-07-2002 00:01									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

How 'bout we throw a massive paintball at it? Good ol' sunlight will get the job done.

	28-07-2002 00:03									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

On further reseach, Gatekeeper is correct, this rock isn't a planet killer. It wouldn't be good though.

	28-07-2002 00:04									#170
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo How 'bout we throw a massive paintball at it? Good ol' sunlight will get the job done.

The problem with that is we don't know whether or not it's going to hit right now. If it isn't, splashing it with paint might make it hit.

	28-07-2002 00:09									#171
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo How 'bout we throw a massive paintball at it? Good ol' sunlight will get the job done.

That reminds me of a 'story' where an asteroid was predicted to impact the Earth, but the calculations were slightly skewed - it was in fact going to scrape the atmosphere and go back into space. Anyway the "defence force' deflected the asteroid with white paint and congratualted themselves on a job well done unknowing that their calculations were wrong. Unfortunately they deflected it the wrong way and they only realised it caused a direct hit once it was too late.

Can't remember what the programme was called, but it was Outer Limits-esque.

	28-07-2002 00:40									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The problem with that is we don't know whether or not it's going to hit right now.

Yeah, I was sort of kidding. I don't think it's worth it to do anything, seeing as how the impact is so improbable.

quote: If it isn't, splashing it with paint might make it hit.

I don't see this as very likely (provided NASA doesn't mix up SI and English again ). The paint would probably have to be splashed on the wrong side of the asteroid for this to happen...

quote: That reminds me of a 'story' where an asteroid was predicted to impact the Earth, but the calculations were slightly skewed - it was in fact going to scrape the atmosphere and go back into space. Anyway the "defence force' deflected the asteroid with white paint and congratualted themselves on a job well done unknowing that their calculations were wrong. Unfortunately they deflected it the wrong way and they only realised it caused a direct hit once it was too late.

	28-07-2002 03:57									#173
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

On the assumption that this asteroid — which is 1.2 miles/2 km wide — will smash into Earth, where would the best place (as it were) be for it to hit? Serious question, folks. Which impact point would result in the least damage to the planet and its biosphere?

Gatekeeper

	28-07-2002 04:03									#174
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Space rock 'on collision course' with Earth!!!

I hope it crashes

	28-07-2002 05:58									#175
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper On the assumption that this asteroid — which is 1.2 miles/2 km wide — will smash into Earth, where would the best place (as it were) be for it to hit? Serious question, folks. Which impact point would result in the least damage to the planet and its biosphere? Gatekeeper

Antarctica, Australia or the south central Pacific. In that order.

	28-07-2002 07:05									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper On the assumption that this asteroid — which is 1.2 miles/2 km wide — will smash into Earth, where would the best place (as it were) be for it to hit? Serious question, folks. Which impact point would result in the least damage to the planet and its biosphere? Gatekeeper

I'd think that a massive amount of water in the atmosphere would do less harm that a massive amount of dust, since the water would precipitate out faster. It would also kill less people directly, so I'd suggest either the Pacific or the Antarctic.

	28-07-2002 07:20									#177
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: so I'd suggest either the Pacific or the Antarctic.

Antartic? The ocean maybe but please not the continent. That would melt ALL those glaciers raising water levels, last I heard, about 200 feet. Plus there could be plenty of limestone to vaporize in the right place there. Limestone would dump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere just as it looks like happened at Chixaluba 65 million years ago.

	28-07-2002 07:27									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: That would melt ALL those glaciers raising water levels, last I heard, about 200 feet.

200 ft? There is not that much ice in Antartica.

	28-07-2002 07:28									#179
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Antartic? The ocean maybe but please not the continent. That would melt ALL those glaciers raising water levels, last I heard, about 200 feet. Plus there could be plenty of limestone to vaporize in the right place there. Limestone would dump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere just as it looks like happened at Chixaluba 65 million years ago

It wouldn't melt "all the glaciers". Care to compare the energy of a 2 kilometer rock impacting at 28 km/s with the heat required to melt a few million square kilometers of 2-kilometer thick ice?

	28-07-2002 07:30									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And ethelred, this water won't all go into the oceans; a lot will be suspended in the atmosphere for a significan amount of time (weeks? months?) by which point ice will already started to have re-formed in places it was lost...