Lots of Water Found on Mars
sanman
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2009000/2009318.stm
Highlights:
-Ice crystals less than one metre (three feet) below Mars surface
-Located south of 60 degrees latitude
-Melted, would create planet-wide ocean 500 metres deep
-Nasa may commit to manned landing in less than 20 years
---------
Wow, that sounds like a lot of water! Even if it's all bound up in
fine crystals -- though with that amount, it sounds like there would
be large reservoirs of it -- you could still extract it for supporting
human habitation.
I hope that the politicians take note, and agree to expand and
expedite Mars missions to explore the Mars regolith and its water.
Hey, that's a lot of real estate up there! Even if it's crummy
compared to Earth, it's still terra firma with water in it. If Earth
ever became really overcrowded, say by the turn of the century, there
might be a few who could be enticed to colonize the place and
homestead up there.
Anthony Roberts
(snort)
WildSide
news:f144e162.02052...@posting.google.com...
Its good to see that they're focusing on Mars... perhaps in our time we will
get the chance to witness the start of the terraforming for a new habitable
planet... I'd volunteer to be a colonist... maybe send out convicts to
populate
and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
John Savard
part:
>If Earth
>ever became really overcrowded, say by the turn of the century, there
>might be a few who could be enticed to colonize the place and
>homestead up there.
I don't think we have to wait for that. Earth remains a very dangerous
place. Whether the still-remaining danger of nuclear war, terrorism,
or the possibility of a new plague, on the one hand, or simply the
opportunity of being among the first settlers on a new planet, many
would be willing to go right now.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Bob Justice
All the more reason to buld a nuclear/water rocket for the exploration
and colonization of the Moon and Mars.
John Savard
<xploreg...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote, in part:
>maybe send out convicts to
>populate
>and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
Mars offers, and since there is a possibility of a discovery of life
on Mars, we need to send very responsible people there.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Doug Jones
> Highlights:
> -Ice crystals less than one metre (three feet) below Mars surface
> -Located south of 60 degrees latitude
> -Melted, would create planet-wide ocean 500 metres deep
> -Nasa may commit to manned landing in less than 20 years
This is probably a journalistic garble, but if the GRS can only detect
ice within a meter of the surface, how can it find 500 m worth of ice?
The cosmic ray particles that create the gammas can't penetrate hundreds
of meters deep, nor can the gammas escape from that depth.
At http://grs.lpl.arizona.edu/science/ it is said:
"GRS can determine H2O content by two independent
techniques. Hydrogen emits gamma rays directly,
which are detectable from the upper few tens of
centimeters in the surface, while the neutron
systems sample hydrogen in the upper meter. By
comparing the results of the two independent data
sets, it is possible to determine if the water is
homogeneously distributed with depth or is concentrated
in subsurface material. Thus the GRS provides a means
of mapping the water content over the entire surface of
the planet with some information about depth
distribution in the upper meter. It will also permit
a determination of the thickness of the seasonal polar
ice caps as they wax and wane through the annual cycle."
Somebody must have pulled the 500 meter number out of his backside by
extrapolating the surface concentration to some arbitrary depth, perhaps
limited by the freezing point depth.
I betcha there's a lot of slips twixt the cup and the lip on this story.
--
Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- B. Franklin
Russell Wallace
>Hey, that's a lot of real estate up there! Even if it's crummy
>compared to Earth, it's still terra firma with water in it. If Earth
>ever became really overcrowded, say by the turn of the century, there
>might be a few who could be enticed to colonize the place and
>homestead up there.
There's no point in thinking about sending people to Mars as long as
it takes the labor of 100,000 people on Earth to send one person to
another planet.
If you really want a Mars colony, invest in automated manufacturing,
robotics and nanotech; those are the enabling technologies that have
the best chance of being able to make such a colony self-sustaining.
--
"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
mail:rw(at)eircom(dot)net
John R. Campbell
Keith Cowing (www.nasawatch.com) who had a handle on this
story WAAAAYYYYY early indicates that a lot of the other
"news" organizations have little clue as to the real story.
NASA and the U.S. Government won't do anything. Mars will
probably be a Japanese colony instead since no one else has
the (male anatomical reference) to go after it.
We've been withdrawing from space for a long time, turning
ourselves inward, crawling into the illusory world provided
by video games and TV to satisfy the urges to explore.
Sounds like a Star Trek episode (The Cage).
One fellow commented that he'd rather see money spent for a
space launch turned over to the entertainment industry to
make new space movies and television shows... (I wish I
remembered who this short-sighted person was.)
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@jtan.com
- As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed above are those of John R. Campbell
alone and are seriously unlikely to reflect the opinions of
his employer(s) or lackeys thereof. Anyone who says
differently is itching for a fight!
Christopher
<anthonyr-at-h...@nospam.com> wrote:
If thats the kind of attitude prevalent in America its a wonder you
guys ever made it to the moon.
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Who shall find a virtuous woman?
for her price is far above rubies"
Proverbs:31:10-12
Rand Simberg
so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com (John R. Campbell) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> One fellow commented that he'd rather see money spent for a
> space launch turned over to the entertainment industry to
> make new space movies and television shows... (I wish I
> remembered who this short-sighted person was.)
That would be a good idea, as long as it was stipulated that the
filming was to occur in space...
--
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..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
John R. Campbell
>On Mon, 27 May 2002 04:49:39 +0000 (GMT), Anthony Roberts
><anthonyr-at-h...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> -Nasa may commit to manned landing in less than 20 years
>>
>>(snort)
>>
>If thats the kind of attitude prevalent in America its a wonder you
>guys ever made it to the moon.
Our problem is that we've not seen anything resembling vision
within the US government. Heck, the Kennedy timetable, as
much as it was an exciting time to grow up, was reactive to
pressure from the Soviet Union.
Nowadays we have a "cooperative" effort that maintains a
monopoly, so there's no tolerance (or interest in) disruptive
technology.
As it is, the Apollo program left little usable infrastructure
for any follow-on programs. The shuttle may re-use the crawlers
and portions of the tower structures (and the VAB) but most of
the VAB isn't really used.
Vision will not come from governmental employees or even the
elected politicians since there's so little profit in it.
If someone manages to find a provable profit in orbit if the
lift costs were low enough (consider the economics for sat-
phones if it cost even 10X less to lift the constellation)
then there'll be a stampede. And it really can't be for raw
materials, either.
Apollo was a wonderful diversion and intensely entertaining but
amounted to damn near nothing. The money was spent here on
earth, so it went into the economy as a "stimulus" package.
Now if only we could have another stimulus package like it that
would actually leave something useful behind...
Joann Evans
[snip]
> Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
> Mars offers, and since there is a possibility of a discovery of life
> on Mars, we need to send very responsible people there.
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Not to mention willing and enthusiastic to be there. Something
prisoners, by definition, are not.
Joann Evans
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 23:45:55 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com (John R. Campbell) made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> > One fellow commented that he'd rather see money spent for a
> > space launch turned over to the entertainment industry to
> > make new space movies and television shows... (I wish I
> > remembered who this short-sighted person was.)
>
> That would be a good idea, as long as it was stipulated that the
> filming was to occur in space...
Agreed. It's been suggested that on-location SF filming would be one
of many things to be done when we have CATS, but computer graphics and
digital effects are making it cheaper than it would likely be, even at
such time, much less now....
Anthony Roberts
> filming was to occur in space...
Given the budgets for some of these movies, I can actually suggest without
sarcasm that they might make the money back.
Anthony Roberts
> guys ever made it to the moon.
NASA has earned my contempt.
Just because I have contempt for NASA's abilities doesn't mean I think
Americans can't make it back to the moon or elsewhere.
Independently wealthy people will be the ones that get humans back into
space in a serious way, and the US contains the largest concentration of
them in the world. It seems likely that it'll be an American to do it. The
just won't work for NASA.
PUK
concepts and scenarios and then commissioned my award winning artist
friend Andy to produce 20x30 inch acrylic paintings of the "water on Mars"
back in 2001.
These two paintings are part of a larger 50+ painting collection on future
Mars topics that I have available.
Lo-res color images of the two paintings can be seen at::-
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~spaceuk/Marsptgs/Marshbw.jpg
This is called "Ghunga Din on Mars" after Rudyard Kipling's character
It depicts a Mars rover team having travelled to the edge of one of the
polar caps to drill out large ice blocks - which are then transported to a
nearby base and converted into potable water.
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~spaceuk/Marsptgs/Marsdbw.jpg
This is called "Water-hole" and depicts a large Mars well head having just
struck a water reservoir below ground in one of the gully-like features
found on Mars.
The original paintings (some of which have already been displayed ) will be
on display at a major exhibition in UK early in 2003 with one or two being
displayed elsewhere throughout UK in 2002
Phill
UK
"sanman" <mano...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f144e162.02052...@posting.google.com...
Kevin Willoughby
> Agreed. It's been suggested that on-location SF filming would be one
> of many things to be done when we have CATS, but computer graphics and
> digital effects are making it cheaper than it would likely be, even at
> such time, much less now....
Computerized effects have been oversold. Note that the scenes of ~40
year old 2001: A Space Odyssey (shot in one-gee, with the oldest of
space movie tricks of hanging actors on wires to film zero-gee
astronauts) are superior to today's pure digital space spectacular
movies, I.e., Attack of the Clones. (Does the Star Wars series even
have zero-gee?)
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as
public relations problems. -- Bruce Schneier
Henry Spencer
<gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Still, there's that worry of a Challenger-style abort, scattering
>isotopes all over the place.
Not that big a deal, if you're sending up *fresh* fuel. Fission fuel that
has never spent time in a reactor is not dangerously radioactive.
>...Is it even remotely imaginable, to
>create a cannister that can survive falling out of the sky from a big
>chemical explosion?
Yes, and quite detailed engineering work was done on this in the 1970s,
when it was thought that the shuttle might eventually be in the business
of launching nuclear waste for space disposal. It's a solved problem.
--
In order to improve computer security, | Henry Spencer
the CEO must care. --Bruce Schneier | he...@spsystems.net
Rand Simberg
Willoughby <ke...@scispace.org.invalid> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>(Does the Star Wars series even
>have zero-gee?)
Lucas has always been indifferent to gravity. And the laws of physics
in general.
John R. Campbell
>In article <3d0c8b35....@news.btopenworld.com>,
> <gree...@BOLLOCKSyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>...Is it even remotely imaginable, to
>>create a cannister that can survive falling out of the sky from a big
>>chemical explosion?
>
>Yes, and quite detailed engineering work was done on this in the 1970s,
>when it was thought that the shuttle might eventually be in the business
>of launching nuclear waste for space disposal. It's a solved problem.
Consider the canister that the fuel element for Apollo-13's
ALSEP (is that -11 or the later? I seem to be sufferring
from selective CRS) RTG rode in a carrier that was expected
to survive re-entry with the remains of the LM and the slug
(and it's "safe") are in exceptionally deep water (they had
to doink with the trajectory so the LM and it's cargo would
go someplace "safe").
The Apollo astronauts fueled the RTG on the lunar surface to
keep the Pu slug in a "safe place" should anything go wrong.
Cassini (and Galileo) rode with the RTGs fuelled and ready,
so there was no protective shell for the fuel slugs.
That being said, I would expect a fuel slug to survive a
Challenger-style explosion pretty much intact- simply because
it's a solid object, and the surrounding RTG would probably
absorb most of the shock anyway. I don't see the fuel slug
as shattering or turning into dust very easily.
Granted, with plutonium it's the poisonous effects rather than
any radiation that you need to worry about.
If someone want to worry about fissionables in the environment
perhaps they should be pressing for a clean-up of the Thresher
and Scorpion FIRST.
And, NASA (and others) perhaps you need to go back to the
canister idea and fuel RTGs in orbit before sending anything
on it's way.
Chosp
"John R. Campbell" <so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com> wrote in message
news:slrnafip7...@heather.uucp.jtan.com...
>
> The Apollo astronauts fueled the RTG on the lunar surface to
> keep the Pu slug in a "safe place" should anything go wrong.
Could you elaborate on what you are trying to say here?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean?
>
> Cassini (and Galileo) rode with the RTGs fuelled and ready,
> so there was no protective shell for the fuel slugs.
What kind of protective shell are you referring to?
There were several layers of protection around the fuel
in the RTGs on the Cassini Mission. I've seen photos
of the bolting of the RTGs to the Cassini spacecraft just
prior to launch and one worker's face is only inches away
from the RTG. Surely there is something protecting him
from the fuel.
Derek Lyons
>Cassini (and Galileo) rode with the RTGs fuelled and ready,
>so there was no protective shell for the fuel slugs.
An incorrect assumption:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/cassini/MoreInfo/spacepwr.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/messenger/oldmess/RTGs.html
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.Projects/Human.Exploration.and.Development.of.Space/Human.Space.Flight/Shuttle/Shuttle.Missions/Flight.031.STS-34/Galileos.Power.Supply/RTG.Fact.Sheet
(mind the wrap on the last one.)
D.
John R. Campbell
>"John R. Campbell" <so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnafip7...@heather.uucp.jtan.com...
>>
>> The Apollo astronauts fueled the RTG on the lunar surface to
>> keep the Pu slug in a "safe place" should anything go wrong.
>
>Could you elaborate on what you are trying to say here?
>I'm not sure exactly what you mean?
I recall from watching the Apollo-12 and later moonwalks (and
the news talking about the procedures) that the RTG for the
instruments left on the moon did not have fuelled RTGs; The
astronauts had to pull the fuel slug from a special carrying
"cask" (I don't recall the actual words used) and place it in
the RTG themselves. The cask was designed to withstand the
destruction of the launch stack as well as a re-entry at
7 miles/sec.
>> Cassini (and Galileo) rode with the RTGs fuelled and ready,
>> so there was no protective shell for the fuel slugs.
>
>What kind of protective shell are you referring to?
>There were several layers of protection around the fuel
>in the RTGs on the Cassini Mission. I've seen photos
>of the bolting of the RTGs to the Cassini spacecraft just
>prior to launch and one worker's face is only inches away
>from the RTG. Surely there is something protecting him
>from the fuel.
The radioactive output of the RTG isn't enough to really
threaten a human being; It's only the destruction of the
radioactive slug into dust that would make it truly dangerous
and easily spread.
The threat is not so much from radioactivity as it is from
the fall-out that would enter the environment in a form that
can be biologically absorbed.
Plutonium alone is exceptionally poisonous- and that's without
the radioactive or fissile affects. Of course, the decay
chains of plutonium are nothing to feel good about either.
Derek Lyons
>no one else has the (male anatomical reference) to go after it.
Nice jingoism, did it make you feel better? I hope so as it ignores
basic facts like, the Japanese are no more likely to risk lives
without reason than the West is.
D.
Derek Lyons
>On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:25:29 +0800, "WildSide"
><xploreg...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote, in part:
>
>>maybe send out convicts to populate
>>and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
>
>Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
>Mars offers,
What opportunity? To live under cramped, dangerous conditions for
decades? To endure extreme isolation from the remainder of humanity?
The first two decades or so, barring the invention of some magic
transportation method, are not going to be pretty.
D.
MCV Fenderson
: Computerized effects have been oversold. Note that the scenes of ~40
: year old 2001: A Space Odyssey (shot in one-gee, with the oldest of
: space movie tricks of hanging actors on wires to film zero-gee
: astronauts) are superior to today's pure digital space spectacular
: movies, I.e., Attack of the Clones. (Does the Star Wars series even
: have zero-gee?)
But Star Wars isn't exactly 'hard' SF. No, what really hurt me
was Armageddon. That was truly a sucky movie from a science viewpoint
(and from others as well).
What I thought was an especially cool detail about Star Wars: A New
Hope, however, was that the turbolaser turrets in the Millennium
Falcon have their own artificial gravity field, in a different
direction than that of the rest of the ship.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but it makes so much
sense to do that sort of thing once you do have artificial
gravity.
--
mcv. <><
Jim Kingdon
> the radioactive or fissile affects.
Uh, do you have a cite for this? There seems to be a lot of bad
information floating around on this point.
See
http://www.ccnr.org/plute_tox.html
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/pluto.html
http://www.antenna.nl/nvmp/pluto4.htm
Here's an article which tries to figure out how the press has
gotten the (mis)information it has on Plutonium:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/issues/sciobs95/sciobs95-03.html
James Logajan
The statement by Sutcliffe that "The popular myth that plutonium is the
most hazardous substance known to man has been refuted repeatedly for many
years. Plutonium is hazardous, but it is not as immediately hazardous to
health as many more-common chemicals," is mentioned in the last article
above and is expanded on in:
"A Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium"
By W. G. Sutcliffe, R. H. Condit, W. G. Mansfield, D. S. Myers, D. W.
Layton, and P. W. Murphy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1995
Which is available at:
http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/
Buster Hymen
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> hey, and I though finally I understand that Dart Vader light sword, its the 2 UV
> lasers crossing at say 1 meter distance, with 1 kA current running.
> That should cut some stuff.
> AND terminate the 'visible' part (discharge path) where they cross?
> Cookie?
I always thought that the sword is an annular laser that pushes a circular mirror
away from the handle. The mirror is held in place by a strand of mono filament
Buster Hymen
Derek Lyons wrote:
Eh!! WWII Kamikaze die before surrender!!
Joann Evans
>
> jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:25:29 +0800, "WildSide"
> ><xploreg...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote, in part:
> >
> >>maybe send out convicts to populate
> >>and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
> >
> >Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
> >Mars offers,
>
> What opportunity? To live under cramped, dangerous conditions for
> decades? To endure extreme isolation from the remainder of humanity?
While this isn't exactly colonization, people do reasonably well in
Antarctica, which could be described much the same way. (And in the
Antarctic winter, there's very little getting in and out, as evidenced
by that female researcher who had to treat her own cancer for a time,
until medical evacuation was posible. Expect much of the same on Mars.)
Oh, and both do benefit from...radio communications?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Buster Hymen" <Bus...@shotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CFC0EC5...@shotmail.com...
Works fine until you see them plunge it into something like a blast door.
>
>
>
John R. Campbell
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>> >On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:25:29 +0800, "WildSide"
>> ><xploreg...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote, in part:
>> >
>> >>maybe send out convicts to populate
>> >>and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
>> >
>> >Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
>> >Mars offers,
>>
>> What opportunity? To live under cramped, dangerous conditions for
>> decades? To endure extreme isolation from the remainder of humanity?
>
> While this isn't exactly colonization, people do reasonably well in
>Antarctica, which could be described much the same way. (And in the
>Antarctic winter, there's very little getting in and out, as evidenced
>by that female researcher who had to treat her own cancer for a time,
>until medical evacuation was posible. Expect much of the same on Mars.)
>
> Oh, and both do benefit from...radio communications?
Yes, but speed-of-light delay doesn't impact voice-to-voice
communications for the antarctic researchers. I think the
dark outside during winter (and any hint of the wind out
there) would have far more impact on me than the isolation.
It'd probably be more like the FBM submarine crews, since
they're isolated from others and don't have real-time
communications with anyone.
And that's it- if you can't have a "live" conversation with
someone outside your group (or have a large enough group, as
in a submarine) there's an increase in isolation-induced
stresses.
At least from my point of view. IIRC from talking to former
submariners, they're kept pretty busy by various drills to
keep 'em all on their toes, which provides one form of
distraction.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>> jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:25:29 +0800, "WildSide"
>> ><xploreg...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote, in part:
>> >
>> >>maybe send out convicts to populate
>> >>and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
>> >
>> >Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
>> >Mars offers,
>>
>> What opportunity? To live under cramped, dangerous conditions for
>> decades? To endure extreme isolation from the remainder of humanity?
>
> While this isn't exactly colonization, people do reasonably well in
>Antarctica, which could be described much the same way. (And in the
>Antarctic winter, there's very little getting in and out, as evidenced
>by that female researcher who had to treat her own cancer for a time,
>until medical evacuation was posible. Expect much of the same on Mars.)
>
> Oh, and both do benefit from...radio communications?
>
Certainly... But my point was: Does the original poster consider
that an 'opportunity'? Or does he labor under the usual romatic
delusions?
D.
John R. Campbell
The point being that the Japanese culture tolerates longer-term
investments than the West.
The four goals of most companies in the US are:
1) 1st quarter
2) 2nd quarter
3) 3rd quarter
4) 4th quarter.
So most publicly-owned companies now are paying more attention
to shareholder satisfaction than customer satisfaction; They've
forgotten who their customers are.
Unfortunately, privately held companies seldom have the resources
to pursue long-term goals- and cannot go scrounging for capital
via stocks and bonds since long-lead-time investments are usually
considered "scams". *SIGH*
It is highly likely that they only way for the western-based
companies to wake up and breathe the vacuum :-) is for someone
else to drag them there, kicking and screaming. It may not be
the Japanese, but _someone_ who looks more than 3 months into
the future will own the "high frontier"- and nothing anyone
else can do will be able to change that.
So, yeah, it sounds like jingoism, but it's more an expression
of dissatisfaction for the lack of balls we have in the west.
In the west, visionary seems to be another word for "financial
loser". Anyone with vision seems to be punished in the stock
market- which itself is just a big game of "chicken".
Bitter? You bet I am. I feigned illness to stay home from
school to watch Glenn's flight coverage on TV and got real
annoyed when even the later Apollo flights got almost no
coverage (or warning when the moonwalks were scheduled).
So we've withdrawn from space. It's obviously more affordable
to spend the money making Star Trek, Star Wars and Babylon 5
entertainment (anesthetize the masses?) than to invest the
money in the future...
Ian Stirling
Controllable mirror, that can be switched on and off?
So that it can let a cutting beam through?
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
My inner child can beat up your inner child. - Alex Greenbank
Ted Johnston
"G EddieA95" <gedd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020602024848...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> >>(Does the Star Wars series even
> >>have zero-gee?)
> >
> >Lucas has always been indifferent to gravity. And the laws of physics
> >in general.
>
> picture has access to NASA's micro g training plane ("Apollo 13" did) it's
very
> hard to film.
How much longer do you think it will be until prices drop to the point where
movie studios can send a few actors to the ISS for zero g shots? Currently,
the Russians want $20 million per person. Could that drop to $2 million in
the next decade?
Why isn't NASA selling seats on the Shuttle?
Christopher
wrote:
>jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:25:29 +0800, "WildSide"
>><xploreg...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote, in part:
>>
>>>maybe send out convicts to populate
>>>and begin the terraforming... or not ;)
>>
>>Don't be silly. They're not worth giving them the opportunity that
>>Mars offers,
>
>What opportunity? To live under cramped, dangerous conditions for
>decades? To endure extreme isolation from the remainder of humanity?
With the mess the world is currently in due to 'humanity' being away
from it for a while could be a blessing in disguise.
>The first two decades or so, barring the invention of some magic
>transportation method, are not going to be pretty.
>
>D.
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Who shall find a virtuous woman?
for her price is far above rubies"
Proverbs:31:10-12
Anthony Roberts
> from it for a while could be a blessing in disguise.
I don't know how much good it would do. Most places are pretty safe, and
you'll still get the news on Mars.
Ian Stirling
It's got to be under a few years, or it won't be worth it for artistic
effect.
Compare Shrek with Tron, and extrapolate.
The first 'photo-realistic' totally CGI film has already been released,
and it's improved to the stage where it took me almost a second to realise
I was watching CGI.
Plus, ISS isn't a film set, you'r pretty much limited to stationary shots,
with no action, due to the size.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Tad Williams has an interesting new fantasy: http://www.shadowmarch.com/
Henry Spencer
Ted Johnston <tjohn...@yahoo.c0m> wrote:
>Why isn't NASA selling seats on the Shuttle?
Because it would sully the socialist purity of spaceflight, of course.
Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
module on ISS, including getting hotel and restaurant companies involved
in the planning to make sure it was done professionally. NASA turned them
down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:Gx9Cs...@spsystems.net...
> In article <8msK8.36981$wj7.13...@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> Ted Johnston <tjohn...@yahoo.c0m> wrote:
> >Why isn't NASA selling seats on the Shuttle?
>
> Because it would sully the socialist purity of spaceflight, of course.
>
> Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
> module on ISS, including getting hotel and restaurant companies involved
> in the planning to make sure it was done professionally. NASA turned them
> down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
To be fair, I think there's another more legit reason also. That would
seriously compromise the microgravity environment.
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>To be fair, I think there's another more legit reason also. That would
>seriously compromise the microgravity environment.
As though it has a good one now...
pat
> Ted Johnston <tjohn...@yahoo.c0m> wrote:
> >Why isn't NASA selling seats on the Shuttle?
>
> Because it would sully the socialist purity of spaceflight, of course.
>
> Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
> module on ISS, including getting hotel and restaurant companies involved
> in the planning to make sure it was done professionally. NASA turned them
> down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
> --
Really?
Was this documented anywhere?
Henry Spencer
pat <ba...@tgv-rockets.com> wrote:
>> Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
>
>Really?
>Was this documented anywhere?
Tsk tsk Pat, you weren't paying attention during Joe Hopkins's talk at
Space Access. :-) As far as I know this hasn't appeared in print, but
the Andrews guys have about the best contacts imaginable at Boeing...
Henry Spencer
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
>> Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
>> module on ISS, including getting hotel and restaurant companies involved
>> in the planning to make sure it was done professionally. NASA turned them
>> down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
>
>To be fair, I think there's another more legit reason also. That would
>seriously compromise the microgravity environment.
Depends on when it was occupied, and what the occupants were doing. If
the bulk of activity was concentrated around Soyuz visits, which certainly
seems likely, this would be pretty much a non-issue, since those are not
prime microgravity times anyway.
(It's always been intended that ISS would alternate short "noisy" periods
of visits and reboosting with long "quiet" periods of better microgravity.)
Derek Lyons
>Plus, ISS isn't a film set, you'r pretty much limited to stationary shots,
>with no action, due to the size.
Go watch Das Boot. You might change your mind.
D.
Derek Lyons
>On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 09:00:28 GMT, Derek Lyons <el...@hurricane.net> wrote:
>>so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com (John R. Campbell) wrote:
>>>Mars will probably be a Japanese colony instead since
>>>no one else has the (male anatomical reference) to go after it.
>>
>>Nice jingoism, did it make you feel better? I hope so as it ignores
>>basic facts like, the Japanese are no more likely to risk lives
>>without reason than the West is.
>
>The point being that the Japanese culture tolerates longer-term
>investments than the West.
Right, *investments*. A Mars colony isn't an investment, it's going
to be a drain, a massive one.
(And actually, your view of Japanese business culture is incorrect.
They are no more tolerant of long term investments than the US.)
D.
Derek Lyons
>The point being that the Japanese culture tolerates longer-term
>investments than the West.
Incorrect.
>So most publicly-owned companies now are paying more attention
>to shareholder satisfaction than customer satisfaction; They've
>forgotten who their customers are.
By law their customers *are* their shareholders.
>It may not be the Japanese, but _someone_ who looks more than 3 months
>into the future will own the "high frontier"- and nothing anyone else can do
>will be able to change that.
If you think US businesses look only three months in the future, you
know less than you think you do.
>So, yeah, it sounds like jingoism, but it's more an expression
>of dissatisfaction for the lack of balls we have in the west.
Balls to do what?
>In the west, visionary seems to be another word for "financial
>loser". Anyone with vision seems to be punished in the stock
>market- which itself is just a big game of "chicken".
An assumption not borne out by fact. Gates, Jobs, Woz, Bezos,
Walton... Punished visionaries all. I could list 'em all day.
>Bitter? You bet I am. I feigned illness to stay home from
>school to watch Glenn's flight coverage on TV and got real
>annoyed when even the later Apollo flights got almost no
>coverage (or warning when the moonwalks were scheduled).
Your bitter because we no longer do space stunts?
>So we've withdrawn from space. It's obviously more affordable
>to spend the money making Star Trek, Star Wars and Babylon 5
>entertainment (anesthetize the masses?) than to invest the
>money in the future...
You delude yourself.
D.
Anthony Roberts
> The first 'photo-realistic' totally CGI film has already been released,
> and it's improved to the stage where it took me almost a second to realise
> I was watching CGI.
Which movie are you reffering to?
Paul F. Dietz
> >The point being that the Japanese culture tolerates longer-term
> >investments than the West.
>
> Right, *investments*. A Mars colony isn't an investment, it's going
> to be a drain, a massive one.
>
> (And actually, your view of Japanese business culture is incorrect.
> They are no more tolerant of long term investments than the US.)
What the Japanese have been tolerant of is a set of policies
that has diverted incredible amounts of money into really
stupid investments. This caused a stock and real estate bubble
which crashed a decade ago, precipitating a recession that still hasn't
ended. You don't hear much about the vaunted Japanese economic
miracle these days. The government has reduced interest rates
to near zero and yet their economy is still in deep trouble.
Paul
Paul Blay
> What the Japanese have been tolerant of is a set of policies
> that has diverted incredible amounts of money into really
> stupid investments. This caused a stock and real estate bubble
> which crashed a decade ago, precipitating a recession that still hasn't
> ended. You don't hear much about the vaunted Japanese economic
> miracle these days. The government has reduced interest rates
> to near zero and yet their economy is still in deep trouble.
From what I've heard part of the problem is the unwillingness of the
government to take required actions that would upset certain interested
parties. Something that the Japanese are not alone in being guilty of.
Ian Stirling
I forget, it's one based on a cartoon 'power rangers' ???
I believe 'photo-realistic' was used in some of the blurb, came out
last summer IIRC.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set him on fire, and he's warm
for the rest of his life" -- Terry Pratchett-Jingo
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> In article <mBzL8.1322$2h1.6...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) <moo...@greenms.com> wrote:
> >> Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a
hotel
> >> module on ISS, including getting hotel and restaurant companies
involved
> >> in the planning to make sure it was done professionally. NASA turned
them
> >> down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
> >
> >To be fair, I think there's another more legit reason also. That would
> >seriously compromise the microgravity environment.
>
> Depends on when it was occupied, and what the occupants were doing. If
> the bulk of activity was concentrated around Soyuz visits, which certainly
> seems likely, this would be pretty much a non-issue, since those are not
> prime microgravity times anyway.
>
You know, as soon as I posted I thought of that immediately. My original
assumption was to be profitable it would have to be "rented" out more often
than that. That of course may not be a valid assumption.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1023365548.10838....@news.demon.co.uk...
> Anthony Roberts <anthonyr-at-h...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Compare Shrek with Tron, and extrapolate.
> >> The first 'photo-realistic' totally CGI film has already been released,
> >> and it's improved to the stage where it took me almost a second to
realise
> >> I was watching CGI.
> >
> > Which movie are you reffering to?
>
> I forget, it's one based on a cartoon 'power rangers' ???
> I believe 'photo-realistic' was used in some of the blurb, came out
> last summer IIRC.
Actually probably thinking of Final Fantasy.
Also in Shrek they had to "tone" down the quality of the Princess a bit to
"fit" the animaton style they wanted.
(BTW, check out the DVD for the "furry Donkey" :-)
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>
>> >The point being that the Japanese culture tolerates longer-term
>> >investments than the West.
>>
>> Right, *investments*. A Mars colony isn't an investment, it's going
>> to be a drain, a massive one.
>>
>> (And actually, your view of Japanese business culture is incorrect.
>> They are no more tolerant of long term investments than the US.)
>
>What the Japanese have been tolerant of is a set of policies
>that has diverted incredible amounts of money into really
>stupid investments.
The Japanese financial system in general is tolerant of things no US
businessman would contemplate, (unless he was wearing his tinfoil
beanie to protect himself from the SEC orbital mind control lasers).
This is changing, slowly, in response to such things as the crash of
the early 90's.
>This caused a stock and real estate bubble
>which crashed a decade ago, precipitating a recession that still hasn't
>ended. You don't hear much about the vaunted Japanese economic
>miracle these days. The government has reduced interest rates
>to near zero and yet their economy is still in deep trouble.
To understand why, you have to understand the engine that drove the
'miracle' (both post-Meji and post-WWII). The Japanese, in the past,
were by and large a thrifty people, prone to save and store against a
rainy day. As the economy shifted from medieval to modern, the
government encouraged the populace to place it's saving in a
government sponsored saving account. This provided a massive amount
of capital that could be invested in industrial development, and
produced more and higher paying jobs. The savings from those
employees then financed another turn of the same wheel.
In the eighties, an attitude arose that 'we have made it, and thrift
is no longer required'. The cycle was broken. It's an open question
if it can be repaired. An entire generation has grown up under very
different circumstances.
D.
jjustwwondering
> With the mess the world is currently in due
> to 'humanity' being away from it for a while could be a blessing in disguise.
It is impossible, for a human being, to be away from
humanity. The *rest* of humanity, maybe. But going
to Mars won't do that: colonists will have to work
together. Misanthropes are disqualified.
Tom Glinos
Henry Spencer <he...@spsystems.net> wrote:
>Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
>module on ISS, including getting hotel and restaurant companies involved
>in the planning to make sure it was done professionally. NASA turned them
>down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
Hmmm. I wonder if Boeing (after being dutifully rejected) has a Plan B.
i.e. going it alone. The CEO of Boeing has often said that the future
of his company would be space.
Long: BA
Short: NASA
(yeah, I watch too much CNBC)
Doug...
news:GxCHAx.F2p...@news.srv.cquest.utoronto.ca...
>
> (snip)
>
> Long: BA
> Short: NASA
So, that's the long and the short of it, eh?
:o)
--
"The problem isn't that there are so | Doug Van Dorn
many fools; it's that lightning isn't | dvan...@mn.rr.com
distributed right." -Mark Twain
Henry Spencer
Tom Glinos <t...@cquest.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>Boeing recently put together a serious, detailed proposal to put a hotel
>>down flat, because it was commercial and thus didn't belong on ISS.
>
>Hmmm. I wonder if Boeing (after being dutifully rejected) has a Plan B.
>i.e. going it alone. The CEO of Boeing has often said that the future
>of his company would be space.
I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. To quote Dana Andrews, then of
Boeing, at another Space Access: "We're an eighty-billion-a-year company,
we are not entrepreneurial." Sometimes there have been a few reasonably
entrepreneurial *people* within Boeing -- the hotel-module proposal came
from the only one left at the moment, Brent Sherwood -- but there are real
limits on what they can sell to their management. When the ideas start to
get daring, Boeing is happy to do the work but wants to see somebody else
paying for it.
Michael Kent
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 09:00:28 GMT, Derek Lyons <el...@hurricane.net> wrote:
> >so...@penrij.uucp.jtan.com (John R. Campbell) wrote:
> Unfortunately, privately held companies seldom have the resources
> to pursue long-term goals- and cannot go scrounging for capital
> via stocks and bonds since long-lead-time investments are usually
> considered "scams". *SIGH*
>
> It is highly likely that they only way for the western-based
> companies to wake up and breathe the vacuum :-) is for someone
> else to drag them there, kicking and screaming. It may not be
> the Japanese, but _someone_ who looks more than 3 months into
> the future will own the "high frontier"- and nothing anyone
> else can do will be able to change that.
You need to read the business press more. Western companies routinely
invest billions of dollars in decade-long projects with no certainty of
profit (see the oil and aerospace industries for examples).
Pharmaceutical and biotech companies routinely fund research with
breakeven points two or three decades away. All of these industries,
however, expect to earn a profit on the sum of their investments after
accounting for risk and time value of money. If your pet project isn't
attracting this type of investor, perhaps it needs to polish its
business case more.
(And note that most of the movers and shakers in these four industries
are American and European, not Japanese.)
Mike
Jim
news:3D269404...@juno.com...
> Cameron Dorrough wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I found it interesting that a film made only a few years ago now, showed
the
> > WTC (with one tower smoking near the top from a meteorite hit!) and Mir,
but
> > no ISS!!. A comparatively recent movie set in the "near future" is now
> > actually set in the past... how the world has changed! :-)
>
> Look at the early scenes from 'Escape From New York' some time....
Funny how we can find water on Mars but not supply it for everyone on earth
:o)
Joann Evans
Um, we know where the vast majority of water is on Earth, too.
Oh, but you want enough safe water for six billion humans, no matter
where on Earth they live, as opposed to merely locating H2O in any form
(virtually always ice, in this case) on a world with a current human
population of zero....
In my experience, the answer to the question: "If we can put a man on
the Moon (which, as I also point out, hasn't happened *lately,* BTW),
why can't we [fill in blank]?"
Is most likely: "In spite of apperances, [blank] is *harder* to do.
Pure and simple."