When all the planets are explored in the solar system

In message , Midnighter
writes

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message
...
:: What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier?

: "
: Land. According to reputable authorities, it isn't being made around
: here any more. (Give or take sea reclamation projects. I think the
: Star Trek movie novelisation established they drained the
: Mediterranean.)
:
: However, it mostly can be bought more cheaply than a space rocket. And
: there isn't much terrific farming land elsewhere in the solar system.

Right; don't compare prices for land in manhattan, or even prime
farming land. Compare prices for land in the gobi desert, or antarctica,
or death valley, or subsea habs, or whatever.

The notion that you can obtain land by terraforming mars much more easily
than you can by terraforming the moon is fine... but it's much easier
to terraform earth.

One might say, "a second basket to put some of the species' eggs in".
But that's so long term, it's much like "we should stop burning fossil
fuels". Plus, what has the species done for me *lately*? Sure, yeah,
we should. But eh, shrug. (Mind you, the "eh, shrug" is not how *I*
feel about these issues; it's how they are going to be treated by most.)


the thing is, what happens when the earth and moon are used? for them to
drain the Med, that is pretty severe, even in the 24th century a la Picard
they were trying to raise a continent. Land was on a premium on earth in
star trek.

Was it? All the pictures we see show a green and pleasant land with a
remarkably high standard of living. I've never understood why a redshirt
would risk a very unpleasant end given Star Trek's social setting,
either.

In rec.arts.sf.science Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
Was it? All the pictures we see show a green and pleasant land with a
remarkably high standard of living. I've never understood why a redshirt
would risk a very unpleasant end given Star Trek's social setting,
either.

Why do people join the Army and risk an unpleasant end in the US today?
Not all enlistees are poor people with no prospects. Many of them are well
off and could easily enough get a safer job, but want to serve, or want
adventure, or whatever. There's no reason that would change just because
it's the 24th century.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Midnighter
writes

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message
...
:: What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier?

: "
: Land. According to reputable authorities, it isn't being made around
: here any more. (Give or take sea reclamation projects. I think the
: Star Trek movie novelisation established they drained the
: Mediterranean.)
:
: However, it mostly can be bought more cheaply than a space rocket.
And
: there isn't much terrific farming land elsewhere in the solar system.

Right; don't compare prices for land in manhattan, or even prime
farming land. Compare prices for land in the gobi desert, or
antarctica,
or death valley, or subsea habs, or whatever.

The notion that you can obtain land by terraforming mars much more
easily
than you can by terraforming the moon is fine... but it's much easier
to terraform earth.

One might say, "a second basket to put some of the species' eggs in".
But that's so long term, it's much like "we should stop burning fossil
fuels". Plus, what has the species done for me *lately*? Sure, yeah,
we should. But eh, shrug. (Mind you, the "eh, shrug" is not how *I*
feel about these issues; it's how they are going to be treated by most.)


the thing is, what happens when the earth and moon are used? for them to
drain the Med, that is pretty severe, even in the 24th century a la Picard
they were trying to raise a continent. Land was on a premium on earth in
star trek.

Was it? All the pictures we see show a green and pleasant land with a
remarkably high standard of living. I've never understood why a redshirt
would risk a very unpleasant end given Star Trek's social setting, either.

In the episode after the Enterprise E fought the Borg. Picard went home to
France. In that ep he was offered teh job as an administrator or something
else of a project where they were raising the seafloor somewhere to create a
new continent. Land was at a premium, people don't create continents on a
whim.

I wonder how relative lifestyles are? To us someone who can't afford the
latest toy or education is just surviving. So with replicators equalize
food and what not, so I'm guessing other things are seen as the "it" things.
Generic ring? worthless, clay pot made by some kid in third grade?
Priceless? Replicators would be a major singulatiry event. If anyone were
to ever invent one they would very quickly fidn themselves and their
designes at the bottom of the bay.

Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.arts.sf.science Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
Was it? All the pictures we see show a green and pleasant land with a
remarkably high standard of living. I've never understood why a redshirt
would risk a very unpleasant end given Star Trek's social setting,
either.

Why do people join the Army and risk an unpleasant end in the US today?
Not all enlistees are poor people with no prospects. Many of them are well
off and could easily enough get a safer job, but want to serve, or want
adventure, or whatever. There's no reason that would change just because
it's the 24th century.

Hmm. Nathaniel Fick was on BBC radio yesterday - day before yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/midweek.shtml (RealPlayer for a
week)

Midnighter wrote:

In the episode after the Enterprise E fought the Borg. Picard went home to
France. In that ep he was offered teh job as an administrator or something
else of a project where they were raising the seafloor somewhere to create a
new continent. Land was at a premium, people don't create continents on a
whim.

They don't create them at all if they have any sense; particularly with
FTL available.

"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
oups.com...

Midnighter wrote:

In the episode after the Enterprise E fought the Borg. Picard went home
to
France. In that ep he was offered teh job as an administrator or
something
else of a project where they were raising the seafloor somewhere to
create a
new continent. Land was at a premium, people don't create continents on
a
whim.

They don't create them at all if they have any sense; particularly with
FTL available.

That shows you how available commerical travel is to the average human.
How many commercial transports have you ever seen on Star trek? There are
small shuttles very rarely. they never had to deal with private vessels, or
even space buses or cruise liners. More often than not people hitched rides
on cargo ships and federation vessels. DS9 was supposedly Ellis Island for
the Beta Quardrant, but it was never any busier than a middle sized mall.

The federation doesn't strike me as being very conductive to private
exploration. Sure the USS whatever goes where no man has gone before, but
the other 99% of humanity sits home doing whatever it is they do.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:29:14 GMT, "Midnighter"
wrote:


"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
roups.com...

Midnighter wrote:

In the episode after the Enterprise E fought the Borg. Picard went home
to
France. In that ep he was offered teh job as an administrator or
something
else of a project where they were raising the seafloor somewhere to
create a
new continent. Land was at a premium, people don't create continents on
a
whim.

They don't create them at all if they have any sense; particularly with
FTL available.

That shows you how available commerical travel is to the average human.
How many commercial transports have you ever seen on Star trek? There are
small shuttles very rarely. they never had to deal with private vessels, or
even space buses or cruise liners. More often than not people hitched rides
on cargo ships and federation vessels. DS9 was supposedly Ellis Island for
the Beta Quardrant, but it was never any busier than a middle sized mall.

The federation doesn't strike me as being very conductive to private
exploration. Sure the USS whatever goes where no man has gone before, but
the other 99% of humanity sits home doing whatever it is they do.


The Federation was shown as having a Socialist economic system. We
only saw a small number of private business people, as opposed to
government employees of one sort or another, and the private business
people tended to be borderline criminals. So, it would be logical
that private ownership of spacecraft would be frowned upon, although
evidently not banned altogether. Historically speaking, Socialist
governments tend to like to have their populace stay in the assigned
places and work at the assigned jobs, and thus limit individual
travel.

--
John F. Eldredge --
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

Wayne Throop wrote:

The notion that you can obtain land by terraforming mars much more easily
than you can by terraforming the moon is fine... but it's much easier
to terraform earth.

Well, yes, but in the case of both Mars and the Moon there's one
major advantage in doing whatever it is you want to do: there isn't an
established PRIOR biosphere -- with, among other things, 6 billion
other human beings -- which your tampering may destroy. If, for
instance, I use powerful lasers/masers/whatever to focus more sun
energy on the pole of the planet to melt the icecaps, no one on Mars
will care. If I do that to Antarctica so I can actually use all that
land, instead of just recognize that there IS land under the miles of
ice, a hell of a lot of people WILL care.

I'm not saying that necessarily makes it worthwhile to go to Mars for
land, per se. But it IS a very different set of considerations.
Basically, there's stuff you can do on land where it really, honestly,
truly DOESN'T AFFECT anyone else that you can't get away with anywhere
on Earth.



One might say, "a second basket to put some of the species' eggs in".
But that's so long term,

Yeah. I think it's an excellent goal, but it isn't one that sells
many tickets.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , Sea Wasp
writes

John Schilling wrote:

In article , Sea Wasp says...



There are reasonable ways for them to make

air and water from what's there, as opposed to the Moon, where you
really CAN'T do that unless you happen to be incredibly lucky about
what you bring and where you land. You can make fuel on Mars a lot
more easily than you can make it on the Moon.

s/can/must
Exploring Mars means, your e.g. water reclamation unit has to work or
you die. Exploring the Moon means, your water reclamation unit should
work or you have to go home and come back later.


Only if THAT is the disaster you are postulating. You can't
postulate "undefined disaster", and then specify one that's
necessarily worse on one end than the other. What about "lose 90% of
your breathing supply"? That would be lethal -- and nonrecoverable --
on the Moon, but on the postulated Mars mission it's just a PITA.


Once again, why? It's a highly unlikely accident, but in neither case
will the crew have a complete reserve for a long stay.

Because, in the postulated two missions, there is a way for the Mars
group to MAKE more air (that doesn't require that they use really
exotic tech or be real lucky about where they landed), which is NOT
available on the Moon. The Moon astronauts lose their air supply,
they're screwed. The Mars ones have that happen, they make more.

This is what I meant about postulating disasters specific to the
missions in question. The original posting was saying "if something
happens"; I was pointing out that it really quite strongly depends on
WHAT happens, and on the mission parameters. In many cases, the
resources we know exist on Mars permit the people there to make stuff,
like fuel and air, that we cannot make on the Moon.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/

"John F. Eldredge" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 05:29:14 GMT, "Midnighter"
wrote:


"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
groups.com...

Midnighter wrote:

In the episode after the Enterprise E fought the Borg. Picard went
home
to
France. In that ep he was offered teh job as an administrator or
something
else of a project where they were raising the seafloor somewhere to
create a
new continent. Land was at a premium, people don't create continents
on
a
whim.

They don't create them at all if they have any sense; particularly with
FTL available.

That shows you how available commerical travel is to the average human.
How many commercial transports have you ever seen on Star trek? There are
small shuttles very rarely. they never had to deal with private vessels,
or
even space buses or cruise liners. More often than not people hitched
rides
on cargo ships and federation vessels. DS9 was supposedly Ellis Island for
the Beta Quardrant, but it was never any busier than a middle sized mall.

The federation doesn't strike me as being very conductive to private
exploration. Sure the USS whatever goes where no man has gone before, but
the other 99% of humanity sits home doing whatever it is they do.


The Federation was shown as having a Socialist economic system. We
only saw a small number of private business people, as opposed to
government employees of one sort or another, and the private business
people tended to be borderline criminals. So, it would be logical
that private ownership of spacecraft would be frowned upon, although
evidently not banned altogether. Historically speaking, Socialist
governments tend to like to have their populace stay in the assigned
places and work at the assigned jobs, and thus limit individual
travel.

They don't seem socialist to me, well, they have their tendencies. So,
having people stay where they are, or assigning them colony worlds, based on
ethnic lines (all the worlds we have seen had a particularly ethnic bend to
it.) Hmmm.. not so ideal a world.