Worthy of survival

Steven L. wrote:
Ken from Chicago wrote:
"Steven L." wrote in message
ink.net...
Kweeg wrote:
"Space Cadet" wrote in message
ups.com...


snip

FIREFLY, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: TNS and much of Asimovian fiction would
dispute the inherent boredom of a human-only universe.

But as the article pointed out, none of those shows has excited the
human imagination and achieved such classic status as Star Trek has.
Because they're downers, that's why; there's only us and we're badly
flawed so what's the point in extending our flaws out into the universe
when we can't fix them here on Earth either?



Umm.. Did you actually watch TOS? Episodes like Balance of Power and
a few other showed exactly the same kind of flaws and political
maneuvering. They did shows on racism, Cold War politics. Mindless
religious activities...

Star Trek struck a cord because it was not the camp Lost In Space
and dealt with looking outward when we needed it.

I still don't see why people think it was the aliens that inspired
people. It was just good stories told well. It happened at the right
time and in a time when space travel was in the news every day and
the US and USSR were really trying great activities.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:46:34 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

Ken from Chicago wrote:

The Moon and Mars are fairly decent.

Both are dead and neither will be terraformed. There is no free water
available.

We can't even terraform the Sahara Desert or the area around the Dead
Sea and they are on the same planet as we are. Death Valley cannot be
terraformed. Not enough water there.

There certainly could be. It is a matter of political and financial
barriers, not technological ones.

-- Roy L

On 3 Oct 2006 16:12:10 -0400, (William December
Starr) wrote:

In article ,
said:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:44:12 +0100, Stephen Fairchild
wrote:

Apart from mining the asteroid belt I can't see much plunder
out there.

??? No imagination....

So, what do _you_ imagine?

Energy and raw materials, the basis of life.

-- Roy L

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:41:55 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

wrote:

??? No imagination....

What do you propose? The only other place in the solar system with a
decent amount of water is the moon Europa.

There's lots of water. It's just a question of moving it to where you
want it. All that takes is energy, and there's lots of that, too.

-- Roy L

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:18:37 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

wrote:

But Mars, at a minimum, can be terraformed. That strikes me as an

Who says so? We can't even terraform our own planet. We can't even clean
up our earthbound messes.

There's a difference between not being able to and not bothering to.

What technology do we have for making Mars livable.

Rockets, computers, robots, and genetic engineering make a decent
start.

It has no magnetosphere. It is wide open to solar radiation.
There is no free water on the planet. It is deader than a corpse. How
are earthlings supposed to grow food there?

Bring in water and air from the Kuiper Belt. If Mars's atmosphere
were made a little thicker than Earth's, the surface temperature at
low latitudes would be warm enough for open-field agriculture, and the
radiation issue would largely go away.

Can we terraform the Sahara desert? We cannot not.

Of course we can, technologically. Just not politically. Too many
corrupt and incompetent governments involved.

Compared to Mars, the
Sahara desert is a vaction resort. Mars sucks **** as a location. It is
dead. It will cost a fortune to make a habitat just for a few people and
it won't be sustainable. There is not enough free water there for any
population growth and water is too heavy to carry on interplanetary
wessels.

You don't carry it on vessels. You move KBOs and similar objects.

Can the area around the Dead Sea be made self sustaining. It cannot.

Sure it can.

Every bit of potable water and food has to be brought in.

Nah. It's just politics.

Interplantary
travel is so limited and so expensive only the bare minimum can be
carried in and that can sustain life for only a short time.

The same could be said about the Vikings' settlements in Greenland and
Newfoundland. They failed, but only because they were small,
half-hearted, private efforts. If you send one ship, you are likely
to fail. If you send one a week, sheer weight of numbers and learning
from experience makes it much more likely you will succeed.

The only
good thing I can say about Mars is that Venus is worse.

It is. But Mars is actually eminently terraformable.

-- Roy L

[much of back-and-forth with Bob and Roy deleted for BW]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:18:37 -0500, Bob Kolker
Can the area around the Dead Sea be made self sustaining. It cannot.

wrote in message ...
Sure it can.

Every bit of potable water and food has to be brought in.

Nah. It's just politics.

Interplantary
travel is so limited and so expensive only the bare minimum can be
carried in and that can sustain life for only a short time.

The same could be said about the Vikings' settlements in Greenland and
Newfoundland. They failed, but only because they were small,
half-hearted, private efforts. If you send one ship, you are likely
to fail. If you send one a week, sheer weight of numbers and learning
from experience makes it much more likely you will succeed.

The only
good thing I can say about Mars is that Venus is worse.

It is. But Mars is actually eminently terraformable.

The thing most of Kolker's adversaries clearly miss is the economic
component. Roy at least seems cognizant of it, but brushes it aside anyhow.

If you leave economics out of the discussion, Bob clearly looks like some
sort of Luddite (and he is, in fact, among the Baddest Apes In The Monkey
House,) but once you add in the economic aspect, he's clearly right. The
bottoms of the oceans and the barrenness of the deserts are infinitely less
hostile than any known extra-Earthly spot, and a thousand times easier to
get to.

Take away the economics and I'm with Roy. But that's the truly bad legacy
of STAR TREK with its replicators and transporters and the rest; so many of
us grew up with the idea that technology would soon render economics moot.
And TREK thus simply sidestepped the economic questions, and I think my
generation incorrectly "learned" that economics is not a real showstopper.
Of course, such a belief is stupendously wrong.

So when I suggest above "Take away the economics and I'm with Roy," the
sentence actually should read, "Ignore reality completely and I'm with Roy."

wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:41:55 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

wrote:
??? No imagination....
What do you propose? The only other place in the solar system with a
decent amount of water is the moon Europa.

There's lots of water. It's just a question of moving it to where you
want it. All that takes is energy, and there's lots of that, too.

-- Roy L

It's very, very cold on Europa though and Jupiter is giving off, I think
the technical term is a '****load' of radiation it's own damn self. If
you want to live on Europa be prepared to have funny looking kids who
shiver a lot.

Besides last I heard Europa was infested with Monoliths.
--
"My God, it's full of stars!"

wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:18:37 -0500, Bob Kolker
wrote:

wrote:

But Mars, at a minimum, can be terraformed. That strikes me as an
Who says so? We can't even terraform our own planet. We can't even clean
up our earthbound messes.

There's a difference between not being able to and not bothering to.

I keep telling myself that. Then again when terraforming Mars comes up I
also tell myself if things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and
YOU'VE got a wet towel wrapped around your head.


What technology do we have for making Mars livable.

Rockets, computers, robots, and genetic engineering make a decent
start.

Yeah but the only resources we have in abundance are lawyers, guns and
money so who will fan the **** if we send 'em all to Mars?


It has no magnetosphere. It is wide open to solar radiation.
There is no free water on the planet. It is deader than a corpse. How
are earthlings supposed to grow food there?

Bring in water and air from the Kuiper Belt. If Mars's atmosphere
were made a little thicker than Earth's, the surface temperature at
low latitudes would be warm enough for open-field agriculture, and the
radiation issue would largely go away.

Me wonders if your engineering goes as far as changing a flat tire.


Can we terraform the Sahara desert? We cannot not.

Of course we can, technologically. Just not politically. Too many
corrupt and incompetent governments involved.

Compared to Mars, the
Sahara desert is a vaction resort. Mars sucks **** as a location. It is
dead. It will cost a fortune to make a habitat just for a few people and
it won't be sustainable. There is not enough free water there for any
population growth and water is too heavy to carry on interplanetary
wessels.

You don't carry it on vessels. You move KBOs and similar objects.

Someone fire up da nuk-we-war wessels!

Can the area around the Dead Sea be made self sustaining. It cannot.

Sure it can.

Every bit of potable water and food has to be brought in.

Nah. It's just politics.

Have you MET our politicians?


Interplantary
travel is so limited and so expensive only the bare minimum can be
carried in and that can sustain life for only a short time.

The same could be said about the Vikings' settlements in Greenland and
Newfoundland. They failed, but only because they were small,
half-hearted, private efforts. If you send one ship, you are likely
to fail. If you send one a week, sheer weight of numbers and learning
from experience makes it much more likely you will succeed.

Well, there it 'tis. We just use the old "baffle them with bull****" method.

The only
good thing I can say about Mars is that Venus is worse.

It is. But Mars is actually eminently terraformable.

-- Roy L

Now all we need is a couple hundred thousand boys in bubbles to get
things rolling.
--
"Blue Sky Over Mars? That's a new one."

"Elvis Gump" wrote in message

Yeah but the only resources we have in abundance are lawyers, guns and
money so who will fan the **** if we send 'em all to Mars?

I like the idea of sending all the lawyers to Mars. This idea alone could
reinvigorate the space program.

Marcovaldo wrote:
"Elvis Gump" wrote in message
Yeah but the only resources we have in abundance are lawyers, guns and
money so who will fan the **** if we send 'em all to Mars?

I like the idea of sending all the lawyers to Mars. This idea alone could
reinvigorate the space program.

So what will we chain together at the bottom of Earth's oceans afterward?
--
"Lawyer, n. One skilled in the circumvention of the law."
-- Ambrose Bierce