RTGPete Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 On a side note I am still amazed at all the Mars probes failing. maybe little green men are running out to stomp on them! bang Bang....go Away! There is actually a long history of Mars probes falling down on the job... lots of specualtion why... even theories that Mars' moons are hollow, artificial or both. might hafta wait for the manned trip to get an idea on what is really going on. Another Glorpton gunner got lucky with his twin-barreled Plasma CIDS "Plunk down those plutons, Fnorb, I got another one..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Lariss Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 4) The Outer Space Treaty signed by the UN in 1967 still holds true. "The Outer Space Treaty contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction. It limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers." I am awae of the treaty and it is (unfortunatly) un-enforcable as any decent sized rock is a weapon of mass distrucion. A Mass driver used to move large quantities of anything into earth orbit can easily be converted into a terrible weapon. Futher I do not believe that the treaty prevents the use of military force against other space based threats (thus it allows L-Sats and K-Sats) provided the weapons cannot effectivly reach through the atmosphere. Lastly all any government has to do is leave the UN to make the treaty moot. as it is only binding to UN members. and this assumes that all the current signitories have not already placed weapon systems in space in spite of the treaty. The Former soviet Union has notorius for signing treaties and then ignoring them, and I doubt the US has been a perfect Boy scout in this matter either. I looked into the "Star Name" thing a few years ago and they do acually register the name witht he US patent officce as they claim but the Us patent office has nothing to do with the naming of stars, it does sound good though and as long as the buyer is aware that no astronimer will be using the name, it is relitivly harmless and makes for a nice gift The "lunar Landing" conspiricy was absurd on the face of it and no-one I know that has ever looked into it takes it seriously No comments of the "Face of Mars" it does make an amusing side note and if it gets people to want to go check it out I am all for it (more $$$ for space) I am aware of several concepts involving Solar Power satalites, but have not heard of any serious $$$ going into research on making them work. the latest idea I h ave heard was to generate the power and "beam" it to earth as microwaves, picking up the power with a "dish farm" and distributing from there. I have been out of things for a year or 2 so there may be more going on now that I am not aware of. I agree that, as things stand, the best new souce of important minerals and such is in space. Itron, tungstun, iridium, Water (don't laugh) are all in essetially unlimited quantites in near space (out solar system) all we have to do is go out there and ge it. now all we have to do is convince the folks with the real money that it is worth their time to go out and get it Ok Time to climb off the soap box Happy New year everyone Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Lariss Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 One more comment there is to be a martian landing (that is we are (hopefully) land a probe on mars the night of the 3rd of january, anyone in Colorado is invited to the event http://lasp.colorado.edu/mer/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Aleen Empire Posted January 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 It is my hope that NASA lives up to their plan to have a manned exploration team set foot on Mars in 2013. I would like to see Mars explored, and hopefully we are able to discover the faint traces of historic life their from Mar's distant past, when it was warmer, had running water on it's surface, and a thicker atmosphere. Geologists and Biologists will just love it all then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Sha'thar hmphs and points back to her comments about how it might be better to make more efficient use of the resources we have than wander into the solar system as a race of strip-miners? Lest we become like the aliens in 'Independance Day," moving to a planet, pillaging it, and then moving on. I think counting on space exploration to solve resource problems on earth is dangerous. Some people may think 'oh well, we can always get more in space' as ecosystems and resources collapse here on earth. Although I'm sure few would miss a kilometers-wide methane ice comet... -Sha'thar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolfe99 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 I read a book recently (can't remember the title or author name), by a renowned scientist who takes the position that manned space exploration is totally pointless and a waste of time. He believes in space exploration using unmanned craft only for the time being. The reasons he cites are twofold - economics and safety. It's a lot more expensive to make a manned craft than an unmanned one, and the instrumentation is what collects the data anyway, not the crew members. It's also dangerous, he says (he wrote this before Columbia.) I can't really dispute his arguments, but I disagree with him more on philosophical grounds. I just think it's in man's nature to explore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krelnett_of_Kraan Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 I can't really dispute his arguments, but I disagree with him more on philosophical grounds. I just think it's in man's nature to explore. We would agree with you. Humankind wants to be present at momentous occasions. Also, if something goes wrong, you want an intuitive human mind there to solve the problems. For a good treatise on the subject, read Harvest of Stars, though we can't remember the author off the top of our antennae. Poul Anderson, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 While the human mind is very helpful in solving unforeseen problems in space, unmanned probes are, by their very nature, disposable. So if you run into an unforeseen problem with an unmanned probe, you just send another probe to try to collect more data to figure it out. In my opinion, it is the human factor that gets you the big money. More people get excited when someone does something for the first time than when some inanimate object does it. [Of course, opinions might change if we stopped crashing things into Mars or remember that you can't just reboot your robot when it develops a program glitch. ] -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Go figure : people playing a space-based PBeM game with fascinating viewpoints and solid feelings about the issues about space exploration. Wouldn't it be cool if we heard these topics being discussed more often within mainstream society? One could only hope that some more serious education and awareness on these issues would liven the debate. In my opinion, any discussion is better than none at all. I hope that the human race succeeds wnough with the space program to at least present the opportunity to rename a star to something more personal like "Julie" But I can attest to the seemingly-ostrich-like stargazing community: they are trying their best with what little resources they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 On a sort-of similar note, after having a somewhat UFO-type experience (with a perfectly natural explanation) I will no longer pooh-pooh or doubt anyone's first-hand experience with phenomena. I know my "encounter" sure scared the heck outta me! "I want to believe" --- Fox Mulder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Sha'thar whistles innocently. The job done, she recalls her fleet of small scout ships which, oddly enough, are saucer-shaped... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krelnett_of_Kraan Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Sha'thar whistles innocently. The job done, she recalls her fleet of small scout ships which, oddly enough, are saucer-shaped... "Oh, you must have seen our recon probe, which, I've just remembered, is Grail-shaped." -Wicked, naughty Zoot of the Zraaknod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 As for the Mars probe landings, I have it on good authority that there is a remaining Bastion class surface fortress that is still fully operational......standing next to a Grand Cathedral dedicated to Vladchek the Dark One...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T'Lariss Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I read a book recently (can't remember the title or author name), by a renowned scientist who takes the position that manned space exploration is totally pointless and a waste of time. He believes in space exploration using unmanned craft only for the time being. The reasons he cites are twofold - economics and safety. It's a lot more expensive to make a manned craft than an unmanned one, and the instrumentation is what collects the data anyway, not the crew members. It's also dangerous, he says (he wrote this before Columbia.) I can't really dispute his arguments, but I disagree with him more on philosophical grounds. I just think it's in man's nature to explore. I believe it was Carl Sagan who wanted an end to human expolration of space as unmaned probes could do it better and cheeper but there are sevearl flaws to that idea 1 People do not get excited about a machene that takes 8 years to get anywhere and then sends back data that only a few people will ever see and understand. what gets the masses interested is people and that is what will bring in support for more exploration 2 It is the natue of empirical scientist to want imperical data and not care about anthing else, but we need to know the effects of micro-gravity on people, we need to know more than what the raw data tells we as humans we have to experiance it to really understnd it 3 Environmentaly, isn't it better to have several solar power satalites and dish farms than to stripmine the planet for coal? wouln't it be more envirenmetally friendly to mine and haul a few million tons of Iron from a lifeless asteriod than to harm the local environment with a pit mine? the mining of space and the utilization of ihe resources in local or near space is far and away the more envirnmentaly friendly option. further we are many years away from automated Mining operations. mines mean people. 4 We have met (or some would say exceeded) the sustainable population that the earth can handle, out options are to: Do as China dis and force population controls world wide, allow the world population to continue growing as it has and end up with some malthusion nightmare, or go somewheres else. We have to chose, grow, stagnate or die. to qoute one of my favorite authors "The earth is too small a basket to keep all of humanties eggs in" one missed asteriod, one large comet and everthing that mankind has ever done is gone. we need to have sulf sufficient, sustaining colonies elswere Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugal Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I believe that nature will cure the over population problem for us. Ebola, Hanta, AIDS, climate change affecting food crops, cancer. Then we have man made controls, birth control, cigarettes, war, genocide. I do remember reading in high school that the whole worlds population could fit in California. It would be a little cramped, but they would fit. Interestingly, the USA has more forested areas now than it did when the first Euro's came the new world. A buddy of mine who works for a oil company in Alaska was telling me the amount of natural gas they burn per month, just in Alaska, would fuel the USA for a year. He also said there is no mechanism to save the gas, they pretty much have to burn it. If the USA can make more efficent use of resourses, it would motivate other countries as well. Sorta like a trickle down effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.