A human Mars mission?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:06:00 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:08:39 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:05:53 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote:
Mars is closer to the mineral and metal rich asteroid belt, and who's
to say there is no money to be made on Mars, if Mars has water, it'll
open up a whole new set of opportunities for the human race.

Mars is at the bottom of a deep gravity well. The asteroids are not.

Mars is a planet, the asteroids are bits of rock, Mars is a major
staging post to the asteroids.

Mars it utterly useless as a staging post to the asteroids. On an
EarthMarsBelt journey, or it's reverse, you have to change
velocities twice, and navigate a gravity well twice, as well as wait
for both the planets *and* the asteroid in question to move into the
appropriate positions.

Much easier and simpler (and cheaper) to go direct.

And budding Mars colonies wouldn't want to start an economic
infactructure, or are you saying that we won't colonise Mars?

The potential water is dirty and frozen in the soil, where it will
take great effort (heavy, electrically expensive equipment) to get to.
That equipment will have to be landed on Mars. It could easily be
cheaper in mass, propulsion, and electrical requirements to just carry
your own water to an asteroid.

Maybe, but more expensive to life the water from Earths surface.

Only if you first accept the idiotic premise that it's easier to get
to the asteroids via Mars.

Well Mars is 43million miles closer to the main belt then Earth is.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On 12 Aug 2003 21:47:06 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

No, you as America per say force your 'culture' for what it is down
the throats of other countrys and act surprised when they cough it
back up and then spit into your face.

If you all dislike our foreign interventions when they suit our interests, why
do you demand our intervention to suit *your* interests? (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc)

I didn't demand that US GI's should go into the Balkans. The Balkans
are more troublen then they are worth, and they should have been
allowed to buy weapons and then left to fight it out, it would have
eventually ended. As it is when the western forces, AND the GI's pull
out the locals will be at each others throats again before our
soliders are half way down the street, as its unfinished business.

Azores and Gander would still be major stops in
Atlantic commerce.

Think Hawaii in a Pacific crossing..

Bad parallel. Hawaii is as much a destination as a fuel stop, so it makes
sense for Pacific transport to stop there. Mars is useless as a destination
since it is no easier to exploit than an asteroid, but has a massive gravity
well.

You percive Mars as nothing more then a source of exploitable
resources?

It's the equivalent of Greenland or the Galapagos in ocean commerce.

But a planet can be colonised, where as an asteroid is more a source
of raw materials. Mars is the next step out from the Earth, as we
leave the Solar System.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:17:11 -0700, "Jason Rhodes"
wrote:


"Christopher" wrote in message
...
On 12 Aug 2003 15:54:00 GMT, (G EddieA95) wrote:

assessment. It realizes that your
European location is no guarantee against world terrorism.

Antagonised by the actions of your government.

OK, so now *we* are to blame for our citizens' deaths because we do not
withdraw our culture from the world, adopt Islam as a nation, and revert
to
local subsistence? that's what Islamists want. Would *your* leadership
accede
to it?

No, you as America per say[sic] force your 'culture' for what it is down
the throats of other countrys[sic] and act surprised when they cough it
back up and then spit into your face.

Care to offer an example of how American culture was forced on Afghanistan?

Voice of America Afganistan service..



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 12 Aug 2003 21:02:40 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Ian Woollard) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:46:11 +0100, in a place far, far away, Ian
Woollard made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Yes, but we have the BBC; and it is world class.

"World class"?

World class liars, perhaps.

Which news organisation told you that???

Many.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...390043,00.html

A report that Peter Mandelson (Blairs closest friend) who said that the
BBC should have "told the truth"? Barely news I would have thought. Is
that it? Bit short on any evidence, other than an obviously biased
opinion from a politician trying to get back into the government.

http://www.rense.com/general39/revolt.htm

People in BBC panicking hunting around for a scapegoat to draw away the
governments ire. Probably going to be Gilligam, unless he dotted every i
and crossed every t with the correct pencil, on the correct paper, held
at the right angle, and probably not even then. Did the BBC sex up their
story? Unclear.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...390378,00.html

News24 says that the Sun 'newspaper' (a daily soft-core porn mag ;-) )
says that the BBC lied. You may be unaware of the journalistic standards
that The Sun tries to uphold. They're not quite as bad as the National
Enquirer ;-)

I repeat. Which news feed told you that?

And that doesn't even talk about their lies about "sexing up" the
Jessica Lynch rescue,

This is the woman who strangely and conveniently 'can't remember' what
really happened, and was being cared for in a reasonably decent hospital
when she was 'rescued'?

in which they absurdly claimed that US troops
were "firing blanks."

Gulf war syndrome. Had to be ;-)

Seriously though; if that's what you consider to be 'a lie', you have
very odd standards. It may be a mistake, but it's unlikely to be a
deliberate lie.

Seriously? Who owns them?

I don't know. What difference does it make?

It's easiest to see why this matters in places like Australia. Basically
Rupert Murdoch owns the entire Australian press; (incidentally he also
owns the UK Sun newspaper, and The Times). Australia has huge monopolies
controlling many aspects of the country, it's a very worrying place in
many ways.

Is this some kind of ad hominem nonsense?

No, no. News is all about who said what, and why they are showing you
the sides that they do and what they are not showing you.

In your own vein, which organizations are defending them?

Mainly the BBC itself, and the public.

Who owns them?!

The public owns themselves, and in a sense owns the BBC too.

Their anti-western agenda,

Nice euphemism for 'anti-american' ;-) And the BBC isn't that either.

laughing

It's nearer to being the case that 'pro-american' is anti-western :-)

(Since America very definitely isn't the west and tends to compete with
other western countries; e.g. France ;-), so to the extent that it plays
a negative sum game, America is anti-western ;-) )

Any attempt
to deconstruct the BBC along these lines would probably destroy the
government.

laughing again

No, no. The BBC is very literally a national icon. It really is.

You probably didn't see how much the government minister was sweating
when talking about the upcoming review of the BBC. It's enormously
politically sensitive- mishandle this, and the current government may
not survive the next election, or will get a far reduced majority. The
opposition would chew into them in parliament all the way up to that point.

As in America, the public value the freedom of the press extremely
highly.

What in the world does a government-subsidized, unaccountable
propaganda machine have to do with a "free press"?

An enormous amount. First, the BBC isn't subsidized, it's paid for
directly by the population who can get it's services, and it ends up
with considerably less money than the commercial stations do for the
service it gives. And who are you supposing it to be generating
propaganda for? Not particularly the government. They have little direct
control over the BBC, except by setting the license fee and charter at
quite widely spaced periods; but the threat is always there.

Britain has no conception of a truly free press,

I think you'll find most UK governments disagreeing with you on that
point ;-)

since it has nothing resembling a First Amendment.

Bzzzzt. You lose. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act of 1998.

(But it's actually very much implicit in the way our legal system works
anyway.)

Care to offer an example of how American culture was forced on Afghanistan?

Voice of America Afganistan service..

Which they are free to ignore or tune off. You seem to insist that the US
should be *numble* and fight for other countries while leaving no trace on
their precious culture, even minor voluntary traces such as radfio signals.
News flash: your country didn't do that when it had the power.

navigational and energy sense (and these matter
most in planning a space mission), Mars isn't halfway, it's a detour.

Or a destination.

Not much of one. It has all the disadvantages of a planet (lots of fuel needed
to enter and leave, hostile weather conditions, unfavorable orbital geometry)
and none of the advantages (we can't live there without the equivalent of a
space station).

Nothing stimulates invention better then money though.


The money in the prizes is far too small for the development needed, though.
CL paid $10,500 to build his airplane (plus the fuel and oil) and won $25,000.
If he had had to develop his technology from WW1 levels, the flight would not
have happened.

In article , Ian Woollard wrote:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...390378,00.html

News24 says that the Sun 'newspaper' (a daily soft-core porn mag ;-) )
says that the BBC lied. You may be unaware of the journalistic standards
that The Sun tries to uphold. They're not quite as bad as the National
Enquirer ;-)

It's not so much the Sun's journalistic standards (it does have some,
just unusually phrased) as the fact that it's the Murdoch press. I read
the Times (surprisingly often these days, I'd forgotten what it was like
to have a daily paper whilst I was a student), and it's simply
incredible how stridently anti-BBC the line it took was - partly because
Murdoch wishes to support the Goverment, but mainly because he has a lot
to gain by savaging the BBC.

Murdoch is a (some would say the) major media player in the country. Of
course he wants to discredit the BBC.

What in the world does a government-subsidized, unaccountable
propaganda machine have to do with a "free press"?

An enormous amount. First, the BBC isn't subsidized, it's paid for
directly by the population who can get it's services, and it ends up
with considerably less money than the commercial stations do for the
service it gives. And who are you supposing it to be generating
propaganda for? Not particularly the government. They have little direct
control over the BBC, except by setting the license fee and charter at
quite widely spaced periods; but the threat is always there.

Indeed, the BBC tends to show a slightly overt anti-government line,
simply because it's safer to do that than to be pilloried by all and and
sundry - it's remarkable the level to which many former Cabinet
ministers savage the BBC in their memoirs.

Rand, really. This is kneejerk and unbecoming, for you and for us all...

--
-Andrew Gray

it is no easier to exploit than an asteroid, but has a massive gravity
well.

You percive Mars as nothing more then a source of exploitable
resources?

I don't see a generations-long colonial effort as being financed by any human
society in our time. Not a country, or group thereof, and certainly not the
corporate sector.

planet can be colonised, where as an asteroid is more a source
of raw materials.

Which can be used to build orbital space colonies, a necessary precursor to
long-haul colonial ships.

Mars is the next step out from the Earth, as we
leave the Solar System

Agreed but the breakthrough to "leave the system" may happen in 100, or 2000
years.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:28:36 +0100, in a place far, far away, Ian
Woollard made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

much snippage, in the interests of time and the fact that it's all
pretty OT

What in the world does a government-subsidized, unaccountable
propaganda machine have to do with a "free press"?

An enormous amount. First, the BBC isn't subsidized, it's paid for
directly by the population who can get it's services,

It's paid for by people who don't even necessarily desire its
services. Everyone who owns a television has to pony up. How can you
not call that subsidization.

And who are you supposing it to be generating
propaganda for?

For their own leftist agendas.

Not particularly the government.

No, not when it does things they don't like.

--
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: