Sid Meier Interview

[Mart]

I propose to modify thread title:
Sid Meier Interview AND Planetology

[binTravkin]

..AND misunderstanding..

[Darkstar]

There's plenty of carbon on Mars. As well as water ice. But, for a permanent human colony of significant size, we'll probably want to ship in more water ice for our own convienence.

Travel time is going to create a poorly conditioned human. When you get into 0-G you immediately start to lose bone density, muscle mass, etc etc etc.

We only need gravity for reproduction. Everything else works fairly well in micro-gravity. Indeed, humans adapt readily to being in micro-gravity.

I know about carbon nanotubes. My point was that you were implying they are up on the moon. That's not true. There's only one material that they naturally occur in (coal), and I've never read of that natural source being found on the moon. Of course, we could manufacture them on-site. But current manufacturing of carbon nano-tubes require a lot of material that is not found at all on the Moon. So where are you going to get that material? The only significant source known for that would be the Earth. That's true for most of the known ways to make the various Nano I am familar with. Meaning that Nano cannot be made on-site (unless trading/supplied by Earth). You know what that means? That means we will instead make the Nano on Earth, and ship that up, as it will be cheaper. Remember, economics is always the final determiner of what is sustainable.

Mars will be colonized long before Venus. It's easier for us to handle. It is easier to survive. It is easier to get up and down from the surface. Maintenance will be eaiser. And if we really want to bring in material, it will be cheap to go out and harvest material from the asteriod belt and bring it to Mars, unlike Venus, where we will only have the tiny inner asteriods, the rare and odd passing comet, local material, or shipping it in from Earth.

Venus will, in the significantly far future, make a better world for us (as we exist as a species today). But that can only happen once we can economically handle its current conditions. Until then, Mars is our best bet, outside of the Earth-Luna local space, as we can handle it economically now. The cost to reach Mars or Venus is close enough not to make a difference. And being that far out from Home means that the cost of any manned mission supporting itself will be the same. But the cost of operating on Mars is currently economical. Venus isn't. That is what will determine where we go in the next 50 years.

Of course, if we can get a significant amout of nuclear power into space, then we could operate pretty well off of Ceres. It is a small rocky core with a huge amount of water ice. If you want to split H2O for Oxy and Fuel, that's a site. Presuming we can get enough power on site to begin the process. But, by the time we actually get that far out, our solar cells may have progressed to the point that they could be an effective power harvestor at that distance.

[binTravkin]

I still want my Artifical Gravity pods installed in every floor!

[Hydro]

I assume you fine gents have read Robinson’s Mars trilogy? This is essentially a SF story wrapped around hard science (terraforming, space elevators, inter-system space ships, etc), with a little judicious speculation. Or is it the other way around?

My personal opinion is that humanity is perilously close to never making into space in a serious way. The USA is the only entity with the resources or will to mount a serious space program (but that may change if the EU gets its act together or China doesn’t implode), and we’ve wasted 30 years with political bickering, underfunding, changing goal posts, posturing, vast public apathy, and a looming fiscal implosion that will likely derail any future efforts at space travel. That’s a terrible combination. Bush’s current plans to go back to the moon and then Mars sound like a replay of his father’s earnest promises of 1990 – which were all empty. Poor NASA is a repository for political pork and a well meaning if numbed bureaucracy. Make more with less, faster-better-cheaper – more accurately, this is slow starvation.

It would be very sad to have a few NASA space probes be humanity’s epitaph.

Hydro

[binTravkin]

Hydro, I think you're too pessimistic in the first place and overestimate US's importance in advancement of human race in second.

There are already countries which are investing in this, the only problem is that NASA keeps its data to themselves, thus many things must be rediscovered at least by Chinese.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Hydro
I assume you fine gents have read Robinson’s Mars trilogy? This is essentially a SF story wrapped around hard science (terraforming, space elevators, inter-system space ships, etc), with a little judicious speculation. Or is it the other way around?

I always liked Spider's work over Kim Stanley's ("Overdose" was a classic of its, uh, "genre?" ).

Originally posted by Hydro
The USA ... wasted 30 years with political bickering, underfunding, changing goal posts, posturing, vast public apathy, and a looming fiscal implosion that will likely derail any future efforts at space travel.

I wonder if individuals in other societies thought similarly as the sun set on their state's empires? It may just be that the mantle of civilization is passing from the US to another state.
Regardless, I agree that more could be done, both in NASA as well as the US in general.

Originally posted by Hydro
It would be very sad to have a few NASA space probes be humanity’s epitaph.

Amen....


D

[Mart]

I think that large part of the problem is in that majority of people dislike things that are alien/new. Look how many copies of civilization are sold, and how many of SMACX? There is also something like stereotype of a person that looks into stars as someone detached from reality.

In fact, those who dislike science-fiction, in my oppinion do not know how much they loose and how much they are in fact limited in their thinking. As a person working at the university I had opportunity to listen to comments addressed to scientists, that they are slackers taking advantage of the hard working people. I comment back, that if someone does not like what science brings, then stop watching tv, stop driving your car, make yourself a bow with some mamoth ligaments and go hunting. Knowing, that such attempts were made by people actually knowledgable in the art of surviving in the wild, I think many of them would die quickly. The similar mechanism is for space exploration.

I often hear, space exploration is waste of money. Columbus had also a lot of troubles with getting money for his trip to India using that "insane" alternative route. Today millions of European descendants are happy living in both Americas. Well, go back to Europe if you dislike exploration. At least Native Americans would have a chance to develop their own culture. If someone could make a list of benefits that satellites on Earth's orbit gave us already, most of the people would be surprised.

I think it is not a problem of countries or governments. It is sociological problem, that majority of people are in fact afraid to explore. Much like Morganic citizens, they like living in luxury and be safe. I think every society has it. And it is more like a chance, that some mainly political factors or simple race to wealth decide about exploration. Columbus was a kinda strange. He was fueled by wish to be wealthy, however, he was not afraid to explore. Notice that majority of people were at that time prefering known routs. Investment was more safe.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Hydro, I think you're too pessimistic in the first place and overestimate US's importance in advancement of human race in second.

There are already countries which are investing in this, the only problem is that NASA keeps its data to themselves, thus many things must be rediscovered at least by Chinese.

Yea, I mean look how much space exploration suffered during the space race when the Soviet Union and the U.S. refused to share data.

[binTravkin]

Yea, I mean look how much space exploration suffered during the space race when the Soviet Union and the U.S. refused to share data.

So you pretend that if someone keeps his knowledge from others he is actually boosting the overall advancement?

Oh, come on, that is not even logical.

..is sociological problem, that majority of people are in fact afraid to explore.

QFT
And I know what's making them even more xenophobic - look at all those 'liberation day''s, 'the war of worlds', 'mars attacks!' and etc.
My gf once said she's so afraid something bad will happen in the future she might refuse to give birth when it comes the time.
It was after she watched Resident Evil: The Apocalypse and The War Of The Worlds.
The latter did really give me the creeps, and was a waste of time.

[GeoModder]

Bin, you mean it was a waste of time giving you the creeps?

And whatever the 'spacies' think about those too afraid to look beyond, they're still the majority around, and need to be taken into account with whatever longterm vision is strived for.

[binTravkin]

Maybe I phrased wrong, better would be if I said I was 'disgusted' at that movie and many else whom almost everybody watches with some surprisingly humanlike aliens dropping, doing some fighting and then dieing either because an unknown cause or some brave/smart american..

The legend of the movie was an excellent bull****isation of the original story which was excellent for the time it was written.

[PJayTycy]

Human space travel is not so important. What can a human do in space at the current time ?
-> Looking out of the window a bit
-> Repairing whatever components of his space station / shuttle are broken


Sattelites, telescopes (like Hubble) and robots (like the mars rovers) are much more important now. They can collect more data than any human in space, they don't mind if they get sent in space and don't return, they can be returned for examination with more ease than a human...

Why do we need humans in space now? It's a lot more expensive and you get less usefull information.

[GeoModder]

Well, for instance good ol' Hubble was repaired in space by humans. And in later missions upgraded so it would function longer and delay the development -and launch costs of a replacement.

Automated processes are all good and well on experimental things, but sometime everything breaks down, mosttimes sooner then expected. And if we're ever come to the point that zero gee industrial processes will be common, there will be a larger need for repair 'crew' upthere and to ferry cargo back down.

And what do you mean with less usefull information coming from space? Offen techniques tested there are groundbreaking for new developments on Earth.

[PJayTycy]

if we're ever come to the point that zero gee industrial processes will be common, there will be a larger need for repair 'crew' upthere and to ferry cargo back down.

Yes, that's why I added "now" to my sentence. At this moment, no humans are needed in space. Ofcourse, a repair flight to Hubble is OK, but just having humans in earth orbit for the sake of having a human in space is useless.

And what do you mean with less usefull information coming from space? Offen techniques tested there are groundbreaking for new developments on Earth.

I meant that those rovers on mars can give us a lot more info about Mars than any human could if we sent one there.