Jump to content

Anybody here on the Mars manifest?


Mallette

Recommended Posts

It's when you really start thinking about living that life that things start to get interesting, I have actually been imagining being a part of the mission, starting a new society, what would I want/hope for as a participant....REALLY interesting!! I was hoping my earlier comment about sovereignty may have prompted a discussion. Of this I am sure, only those participating should have any say in their new constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the mars colony website it appears the main weakness is that not much failure tolerance is built in.  I went there mainly curious about how they would manage radiation exposure.  They'll do it with water, a good plan as a recyclable. 

 

However, given the difficulties we've seen in assuring both good landings and fully functionality I have my doubts.  There are no optional components.  Every mission has to get there safely, manned or unmanned. 

 

Of course, things can be replaced but any key failure throws the schedule off by at least a couple of years and will decrease confidence (think, MONEY). 

 

Rooting for them, and definitely in awe of their courage and audacity. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of this, but before the lunar landing wasn't there some sort of international agreement that there would be no planting of flags? i think this even applies to Antarctica

 

That's true.  I've not reviewed it recently (decades) but there is a UN document banning national claims on extra-terran real estate.  OTOH, it may be something of a "Fine, now let them enforce it" sort of thing when all is said and done.  Or, for privately held outposts such as might well be the first on the moon, corporate government...yuck.  Something will have to be worked out.   

 

I assume that there are some "lines" on the Antarctic national stations where you are under some sort of law.  Interesting stuff...

 

I note they are planning a 210 day transit.  Pretty quick for chemical power so we can assume they are tied to some time restrictions on launch windows. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's a moot point during the first phases when a few hundred people are involved. It will launch a lot of parables and stories and experiments and discussion of systems. It will get interesting when the need arises for "bosses".

There were a 102 on the Mayflower manifest and they felt it needed to be dealt with up front.  I think they were wise.  There may be commanders or bosses, but they'll have absolutely no backup.  An extraordinary social experiment, for sure.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can't claim to be a Catholic if you are unsure about the Pope.
Sure you can, and it happens all the time. Being unsure about the Pope isn't at all the same as being unsure about Christ.

 

But we can get back to the Mars discussion.

 

 

Ok, now you have my curiosity piqued.

 

The Pope's title is the "Vicar of Christ."  That's a rather specific duty and signification. Doesn't that define the essential difference between say, a Catholic and a Protestant? If one is Catholic, and doesn't believe in the position of the Pope, why be a Catholic?

 

 

Been kinda busy, but I'll take this off the forum and send you an email when I get the time. I'm enjoying the thread and don't want to see it get locked. :ph34r2:

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The very definition that Mark presents describes a narrowing of focus from that which the science club chooses to ignore, which inherently implies that something exists that scientists chose to ignore.

 

Correct. And what we choose to ignore are the claims of gods and demons as causes.

 

If someone wanted to summarize the difference between science and religion in the fewest possible words it is this: Religion accepts the actions of the gods as a cause, and science doesn't.

 

 

My comments in this thread actually had nothing to do with religion or intelligent design. I'm actually surprised you jumped to that conclusion, but my intent was strictly to point out the philosophy upon which science stands.

 

It's become quite apparent to me in recent months that the reason science gets blurred in discussions like these is because there is an underlying cultural assumption that truth only exists within science. So if you start with that premise, then people naturally and incorrectly try to force non-scientific truths into the science bucket because the "science bucket" is seen as the "truth bucket". I'm not saying this is correct, but it is an observation that has fascinated me as of late - especially in light of the discussions between you and Dave.

 

I totally agree with you that the boundaries of science need to be maintained, but at the same time I think we need to provide room for non-scientific truths to be discussed with the same level of merit.....especially in light of the fact that science cannot stand without its philosophical foundation. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion here.

 

To put it in question form, does any truth exist outside of science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's completely explained right here:

 

That's not part of Mike's post.

 

I never did comprehend at all why you were pointing at me about that as well.  No matter how hard I stretch I can see nothing in this thread to indicate anything outside science and technology...save perhaps the urge to explore.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science doesn't actually care about truth, and I don't know why people can't understand that. Truth is for philosophers.

 

Science is a subset of philosophy. Practicing science solely for the sake of science is entirely meaningless without a philosophical framework.

 

Since you like Wikipedia:

 

Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

 

 

Again, this has nothing to do with religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point being that until we understood the ultimate cause of it we knew nothing.

 

You're right about it not going anywhere.  If you were an ancient Inca priest you could tell me precisely when the next eclipse was coming.  If I asked you if you knew exactly what it was, you'd say "Of course, it's a dragon flying across in front of the sun god" or something to that effect.  The only difference here is that at least our scientist don't pretend to know what it is.  Otherwise, not much has changed.  I know you think otherwise, but I tend to think in much greater time chunks than centuries and in much more profound change.

 

Now, if we'd solved some elemental issues like disease and mortality, definition and manipulation of gravity, etc, I might be a bit more impressed. 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to point out these two quotes from page 1:

 

I was looking to understand the meaning of going to Mars vis a vis coming to the New World.

 

When no explanation is possible, it means there's nothing to explain. Sorry. The business of science is explanation.
 

 

Dave was making a philosophical claim. You imply his view is invalid because it does not fall within the narrow confines of science. Dave then replies that his philosophical views are consistent with anything science could say on the matter....and arguably Dave oversteps the strict definition of science while doing so, but I believe his motivation has been trying to seek commonality with your false premise that only things within the category of science are worthy of discussion. And maybe Dave falls into that category too? This ideal of "science only" (or however you want to describe it) is a paradox. Perhaps your philosophy allows for paradoxical thought? Science and mathematics certainly don't.

 

I just don't understand why you necessitate Dave offering a scientific analysis for a subject you claim doesn't fit within the category of science? I totally disagree with Dave on the gravity part, but that's not where the "science" discussion started. You brought it up way before that - specifically in light of "motivation for exploration" as it pertains to the New World versus Mars. That actually would have been a much more interesting (philosophical) discussion versus the constant chest beating about science. I personally think the motivations are very different - but it's easy to rewrite history and sensationalize what the New World motivations were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen Any scientific study which described an infinite growing population.

 

Your black and white "it's either science or everything but" approach it is why you have such a hard time with interdisciplinary concepts...which are most concepts. 

 

As to the above quote, you don't have to.  It's clearly visible.  Let me know when we get to zero growth.  Granted, that means self-extinction, but that is an answer of sorts.  So, how do you deal with finite resources even if you sterilize everybody except a few breeders or whatever?

 

Here's a list of critical resources a number of reports from reasonably objective sources agree we will largely exhaust by the end of the century:

 

Coal  (shocker...but a fact)

Oil (extended from previous estimates by fracking...but fracking is scraping the bottom of the barrel, as it were)

Uranium (largely being fed by old warheads...mining already insufficient to feed EXISTING reactors)

chromium

molybdenum

tungsten

nickel

platinum-palladium

copper

zinc

cadmium

titanium

tin

lithium (projections of increased use for electric cars and such require 80-100% recycling...currently almost nil recycled)

phosphorus (economically viable deposits already post peak production)

 

I could list more.  Find a way around half of those...the remainder will still ruin us.  Yes, with a complete restructuring not just the economy but EVERYTHING we could eke out another miserable century...maybe.  But we won't do that and you bloody well know it. 

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least you got off the science kick and are on a tangent of faith, hope, and fantasy.  Only thing that report is missing is prayer.

 

 

If a scientific breakthrough in a given year increases the prospective output of the unused stocks of a resource by an amount greater than the reduction (via resources actually used up) in that year, then, in terms of human economic welfare, the stock of that resource will be larger at the end of the year than at the beginning. Of course, the remaining physical amount of the resource must continually decline, but it need never be exhausted completely, and its effective quantity can rise for the indefinite future.

 

Now THERE's a methodology!

 

While the longer-term prospects for these prices are uncertain, new energy-producing techniques such as nuclear fusion, along with the increasing use of renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar power, and hydrogen fuel cells, may be able at least to offset the upward pressure on energy prices.

 

Yes, sir, salvation is at hand! 

 

Say, for example, that a new recycling technique allows copper to be reused before it is scrapped and that no such reuse was economical before. Then this technique has doubled the effective reserves of copper (aside from any resources used up in the recycling process).

 

Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my ***!

 

The effective stocks of a natural resource can be increased in at least three ways:

1. A technological innovation that reduces the amount of iron ore lost during mining or smelting increases the effective stock of that resource.

 

2. The (partial) substitutability within the economy of virtually all resources for others is at the heart of the second method for increasing the effective stocks of natural resources.

 

3. The third way we can increase our effective stocks of a natural resource is, of course, by technological changes that facilitate recycling.

 

These three means can all increase the effective supplies of exhaustible resources and can augment the prospective economic contribution of the current inventory of resources, perhaps more than enough to offset the consumption of resources during the same period.

 

And after this unnamed innovation, unspecified substitution, and hoped for new method of recycling THEN WHAT?

 

But as we have seen here, rising productivity (the source of the great leap in economic growth) may actually augment humanity’s stock of natural resource capital instead of depleting it, and may be able to do so, for all practical purposes, “forever."

 

Good grief...ain't science grand!  Invented the glass that can't be emptied.

 

So far, the pessimists have been wrong in their predictions. But one thing is also clear: to conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to worry is tantamount to committing the same mistake the pessimists are often guilty of—that is the mistake of extrapolating past trends. The future is something inherently uncertain.... That the alarmists have regularly and mistakenly cried “wolf!” does not a priori imply that the woods are safe. (Neumayer 2000, p. 309)

 

OK, at least a BIT of sense in their conclusion.

 

If that's all the "it'll be OK" crowd has to offer we're even closer to disaster than I believed. 

 

Dave

Edited by Mallette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it will take close to that "100 years" for this project to really get going. I can see the first stages maybe happening in the foreseeable future, but nothing close to any large scale operation. It would also only take one catastrophe to completely dis-rail the project...However I would still be willing to be a participant tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...