A human Mars mission?

Christopher wrote:

You can establish a space based human society on a planet better then
on an artificial stucture like a space station.


Your argument against habitats built from asteroids has been lack of
gravity.

You do _not_ need a torus 5 miles wide spinning at 3 rpm to get an earth
gravity.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Jason Rhodes wrote:

Atmosphere is not what protects against cosmic rays. It protects against
UV.

Jason


From a National Geographic review of the movie _Core_
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...27_tvcore.html

"I don't want to diminish enthusiasm for the movie, but I don't think
anybody would notice if the magnetic field disappeared," said Jack
Connerney, a planetary scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, in
Greenbelt, Maryland.

"The ionosphere and atmosphere would keep out much of the solar wind and
radiation," said Connerney, so although the radiation would increase
slightly, life on Earth would not fry.



Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:40:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Those aren't original sources, those are largely secondary sources
(unless the thing that you are talking about is 'who said what' rather
than 'what actually happened).

When I say "original sources," I was referring to original sources of
reportage.

That's not a common usage of the term 'original sources'.

In the context of the discussion, it was a reasonable one (at least,
obviously, to me).

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Christopher wrote:
If you insist there was a colony contemporary to Roanoke Island,
please provide reputable sources to prove its name, location, etc.
Otherwise, please retract this claim.

No.

In other words, you openly admit to being unable to support your
claims...

Can you remember all details of a subject of a tv program you saw
several months ago?

And refuse to retract them on top of that?

No.

What you are claiming here is in contradiction to
numerous standard histories and archaeological texts,
there isn't any news report I can find about such
a exhumation at Roanoke, or any of the other claims
you are making here.

You *cannot* just go around making claims that extreme
and then refuse to supply some sort of further reference
or documentation, and refuse to retract them, and expect
to have any credibility left afterwards, Christopher.

Doesn't Horizons have a website with summaries of previous
stories on it, or can't you call their offices and ask
for some info on it? Come on. Just because you only
saw it once months ago doesn't mean the information is lost
for all time. It's lost to lazy access, but if you expect
to be taken seriously you need to be willing to put some
effort in sometimes.

If you misremembered something they were reporting then
that's not a huge blow to your credibility. We all make
that sort of mistake sometimes, but copping to it is important.
Covering it up is a sophomoric move, and death on your
reputation both online and in real life.

If they reported something which is incorrect,
I want to know why.

If they reported something new accurately I want to
know why it's not covered in any archaeological journal
or other news medium that I would expect to see it in.


-george william herbert

Jason Rhodes wrote:
"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Jason Rhodes wrote:


Atmosphere is not what protects against cosmic rays. It protects

against

UV.

Jason



From a National Geographic review of the movie _Core_
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...27_tvcore.html

"I don't want to diminish enthusiasm for the movie, but I don't think
anybody would notice if the magnetic field disappeared," said Jack
Connerney, a planetary scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, in
Greenbelt, Maryland.

"The ionosphere and atmosphere would keep out much of the solar wind and
radiation," said Connerney, so although the radiation would increase
slightly, life on Earth would not fry.




From Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...B7809EC588F2D7

"It is not easy to predict the effects of the decrease. The Earth's magnetic
field extends outward from the Earth forming a shield which focuses cosmic
rays towards the magnetic poles and away from other latitudes. In the
absence of this magnetic field, or magnetosphere, these cosmic rays would
bombard the entire Earth with a higher intensity that today. The effects of
cosmic rays on life in general are not known for sure, but it is expected
that they would cause tissue damage similar to the effects of x-rays."

So it is not clear to me what the correct answer is.


Well, your source doesn't say the atmosphere gives no protection. I'd
think that if magnetic reversals left us as unprotected as, say, the
surface of the moon, then extinctions would have been much more dramatic.


I do think that on Mars, we cannot expect the magnetic field or atmosphere
to block cosmic rays.

Jason

That's my opinion too (FWIW).

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

(Christopher) wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:25:33 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

Err Colony No 2. :-\ Seriously, I have no-idea i just know it was
near the one that got wiped out and it had a surplus od food.


Err... Do some research, and you'll find there was no 'Colony No 2'.

Did you see the BBC2 Horizon that was the subject of this sub tangent
on a tangent?

A - I live in the United States
B- I generally prefer to use reliable sources for my historical
information.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Christopher) wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:40:50 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

Well what do you expect when the local manufactures have been driven
out by the big brand names, another point which won't endear
corporater Americism with the locals.

New products can only drive out the old by the choice of consumers.

Thats a western thought process.

Thats an economic fact.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

(Christopher) wrote:

Better a monarch then a president who sneaked into office on the back
of a bogus result.


When we have one, I agree that will be a problem.

But that hasn't happened yet.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:59:21 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Christopher) wrote:

Better a monarch then a president who sneaked into office on the back
of a bogus result.


When we have one, I agree that will be a problem.

But that hasn't happened yet.

Even when it does, at a maximum, it will be a problem for only eight
years. Queens are queens until they die.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:59:21 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Christopher) wrote:

Better a monarch then a president who sneaked into office on the back
of a bogus result.


When we have one, I agree that will be a problem.

But that hasn't happened yet.

Even when it does, at a maximum, it will be a problem for only eight
years. Queens are queens until they die.

Sorta like President for Life in some Central American countries.

But Derek's point remains. Regardless of how one feels about how the
outcome of the last election was determined, it was determined in
non-violent, rather civil manner, and the "results" can always be
"overturned in 04 or 08." Sorta nice.

Actually the real question I have is... why have a Queen who really can't do
much.

I mean ok, if you're going to have a Monarch, why not one who actually has
real power. If they don't have power, why have them?



--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: