NASA To Team Up With Russia For Future Mars Flight

xp65 writes "NASA has invited Russia to carry out a joint manned flight to Mars, the head of NASA's Moscow office said on Tuesday. Russia is currently planning to send its own expedition to Mars some time in the future. Marc Bowman told an international aviation and space conference in Moscow that the Mars mission should take advantage of the achievements made by the International Space Station and use a multinational crew."

Comments

Understanding

[KraftDinner]

I've always thought that the only way for us as a race to become a unified nation is to simple explore space together. As soon as one nation decides to call Mars or whatever other celestial body their own, it will just be downhill from there.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your underestimating the importance of competition.

Russia going to Mars alone could motivate a second space race. The end result is someone standing on Mars in 10 years instead of 20. NASA is more likely to get funding and motivation if they are competing.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition

What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation? One man, one vote? That leads to the tyranny of the majority. Do you adopt a split system like the US Federal Government with an upper-body for each member state and a lower body that represents populations? In that case is it really fair that the Vatican gets the same representation that China or India does?

I'm not jumping up and down at the prospect of a unified planet Earth. I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain. I see plenty that we could lose though.

Re:Understanding

[ThinkWeak]

The second space race has already started. With India and China in active development, this would be a great opportunity for the U.S.

We team up with Russia to get to Mars, meanwhile India and China work to do the same.

It's OK to not have to compete with EVERY other country out there. We don't always have to be THAT GUY.

Re:Understanding

[MozeeToby]

Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain? If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending. Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy, or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world, or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.

There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet. The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Would a global federal republic be that much worse?

It would be for Americans, who would stand to lose our right to keep and bear arms and our right against self-incrimination. Neither of those rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor is the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Then there's the matter that different countries regard free speech differently. In Europe they outlaw "hate speech". In the US it's protected.

So again, which model do you use? The only document that has near-global acceptance fails to protect several rights that Americans already have. Given that those rights aren't regarded as such by most other nations why would I assume that a global government would protect them?

Re:Understanding

[MrNaz]

If it ends up anything like the Apollo 11 mission, the cake *and* the launch will be a lie.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain?

Perhaps I should have said that whatever we stand to gain is not enough to offset what we would stand to lose.

If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending

Then what happens when some asshat comes to power in one of the member states and stops following the rule of law?

Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy

But you just said that you agree with me on most of my points. My main point was that we would stand to lose our freedoms. What good do opportunities do you if you aren't free?

or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world

Why do you need a global government to tackle world hunger? Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?

or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.

Why would a global government keep trade from sabotaging individual countries? It's arguable that this already happens within nations. As a random example, the American South provides tax incentives and employer friendly labor laws to encourage manufacturers to set up shop there instead of in the Northern states.

The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).

I'd say that's a pretty big problem :)

Re:Understanding

[Hurricane78]

And why would we want a unified planet? I mean you can't even get to one p.o.v with all your friends, let alone a whole country, and you expect global lockstep?

There will always be differences and arguments. The point is that we will hopefully be able to solve them without ripping our heads off. But this does not mean we all have to live under the same rules. We can live happily side-by-side with differing view.

The only thing a global unity is absolutely guaranteed to bring, is the lack of any freedom of choice in politics/regime/laws/etc. Imagine the US nation under bush, or how it's in UK now... But global! Now think about this: Where would all those go, who wanted to leave the country?

Well, in the long term, they would go to jail. It's the totalitarian dream. And it will only happen over my dead body, and those of many many other people.

Re:Understanding

[0123456]

There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet.

There are a lot of things that Santa Claus could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet too... they're about as likely to happen as a 'properly implemented world government'.

You seem to be under the impression that a 'world government' would be something other than a collection of psychopaths desperate to prey on the rest of us.

The odd thing is that I find the people who most promote 'world government' are also normally big promoters of 'diversity', and don't even see the blatant inconsistency between those position.

Re:Understanding

[Beardo the Bearded]

I have always admired the American response to hate speech. "It may be harmful, it may be spiteful and untrue, but you can say whatever the fuck you want to say."*

They've fucked that up in Canada, and it makes me sad.

*except on TV.

Re:Understanding

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Considering we've had wars and genocides throughout human history and we're still here, did it ever occur to you that they might serve some biological function you're not aware of? The 20th century set a record for bloodbaths. We still started it with a world population of 1.6 billion, and ended it with a population of over 6.5 billion.

If the "biological function" you're thinking of is population control, then you're contradicting yourself: clearly, the unparalleled bloodbaths of the 20th c. didn't do much to keep the numbers down.

Anyway, it's silly to talk about "biological functions" at all in a large population. There is no biological imperative for any species to do anything except keep itself going, which humans can do pretty well with or without war. There is no abstract standard of fitness, no goal to evolution, etc. As long as H. sapiens is still here, it is by definition performing its biological function just fine.

And finally, your .sig:

Social Justice: Seeing a liberal getting slugged in the teeth.

So you don't have the guts to go out picking fights with liberals, but you want to see someone else do it? That's an unusually honest bit of conservative chickenhawk macho bullshit. Speaking as a liberal, all I can say is, you're welcome to try; afterwards, the hospital personnel will be happy to tell you more about your own personal biological functions than you ever wanted to know.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?

What good does that do me if my civil liberties are reduced to the lowest common denominator?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right?

The right to defend yourself and your family against aggression is a human right. Humans aren't obligated to turn the other cheek when faced with aggression. If you accept this simple truth then it stands to reason that we have the right to possess tools that enable us effectively exercise our right of self-defense.

What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?

Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.

No, nothing of the sort is "pretty clear". Not when the closest thing we currently have to a world government (the UN) lets countries like Libya and Cuba sit on human rights commissions.

Not so with guns (and speaking as a European - that's probably a plus).

So you admit that I'd lose a right that I already have? Way to sell me on the idea :) Saying it's a "plus" demonstrates that you are willing to go along with a policy of taking away the rights of another.

Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree.

No, it's not a tough one at all. Who gets to decide what's hate speech? The Government? Then they can decide that anything is hate speech and outlaw it. There are a few people on the left in the US that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are "hate" speech, whereas most sane people would regard their speech as political discourse. It may not be particularly intelligent political discourse but that doesn't mean it's "hate" speech.

If Government gets to decide what type of speech should be free then we don't have free speech. We have approved speech. You can spin it anyway you want but that's not free speech.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Because not everyone is strong enough to defeat a determined aggressor in hand to hand combat? Because aggressors will always be able to get their hands on weapons despite the numerous laws saying they can't have them? Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It will be formed willingly one day.

History suggests otherwise. If we ever find a way to get off this rock it's more probable that you'll see oppressed people leaving to start a new life than it is that you'll see us all come together to sing kumbaya around the camp fire.

And probably by that time Americans will stop clinging to their toy guns...

How many more genocides of unarmed populations will we have to see before you people stop looking down on those who want the ability to protect themselves from those who don't share your enlightened morality?

Re:Understanding

[ShakaUVM]

>>What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation?

You just average them all together. You get the civil freedom of Singapore, the freedom of business of China, the education system of America, and the clear-headed sensibilities of the European Union.

It's win-win!

Re:Understanding

[Foobar of Borg]

Russia going to Mars alone could motivate a second space race

Nah, cause Russia is no longer the "Evil, Godless Soviet Union". China, on the other hand, might motivate us.

Re:Understanding

[johncadengo]

In a speech to the UN, Reagan once said:

"I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held, if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences we've had between our countries and we'd find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I don't have a problem with you including good ole Fidel in that list. I don't take any issue with him for fighting to free his people from the Batista's. I do think it's fair to take issue with him for the manner in which he choose to run his country though. Washington willingly surrendered power and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer thereof. Fidel has clutched to it for the better part of half a century and "surrendered" it to his brother once he became too old and feeble to run the country.

I would point out that Ceaser probably doesn't deserve to be in your list. My reading of history suggests that it was never his intention to take over the known world. His conquests seem to have been driven by the motivation for personal enrichment/political prestige back home and the desire to defeat his enemies within the Roman state. Alexander the Great is a better example. He would have kept going all the way to China if his troops had let him.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

We'll probably have a federated republic, not a unitary state.

The US is a Federated Republic. As originally laid down it was never imagined that the Federal Government would get involved in everything from gun control to the welfare state. Why should I believe that a Federated World Government wouldn't be subject to the same mission creep and erosion of personal liberty?

Also, if you speak about guns as a right, then can you show me why it's a necessary right?

Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves (self-defense) when confronted with someone who doesn't share our enlightened morality? If the answer is yes then why don't they have the right to have access to the tools that enable them to defend themselves effectively?

A gun is an equalizer. Nothing more, nothing less. Few of us geeks here on /. would be capable of prevailing in a fight against a hardened criminal who spent the last ten years in prison pumping iron. Put a gun in your hands and the odds change considerably. In the worst case scenario they are now equal. In the best case scenario they are tilted in your favor. I'm not a particularly religious person but I do agree with the sentiment behind this quote: God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

There's also the argument that an armed population provides deterrence against external aggression. Switzerland is the best known example, though some sources indicate that the armed American population provided a deterrent to the Japanese in the early stages of WW2. I would go so far as to advocate that we emulate the Swiss/early American model. Disband most of the Army, while keeping specialist units (anti-aircraft brigades, artillery, intelligence, etc) and the Navy/Air Force around. In the event of a conflict it doesn't take that long to draft people into the service and teach them to fire a rifle. Such a system protects the country just fine while doing away with the standing army that the politicians are tempted to send on foreign adventures or use to oppress the population.

If none of those arguments hold water with you then I don't know what to say other than why do I have to prove that my rights are "necessary"? A Chinese person might argue that the right to free speech isn't "necessary". Many countries get along without it. I don't think we want to emulate them though.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Nope. I'm talking about how USELESS are handguns in a REAL warfare or civil war. And I'd lived quite close (less than 100km at one point, we've heard explosions in our home) to one.

So now you are making more assumptions about what I wrote, unsupported by the actual text of my comments? Please point out the post of mine in this thread where I used the word "handgun".

I'd like to see you going out with your handgun against a gang of AK-74-wielding thugs. And don't think that they'll run if you shoot one of them.

I don't have to use my handgun. I've got a Mini-14 and M-1 Garand for that scenario. The handgun is primarily useful against thugs of the more mundane (criminal) variety and as a last resort in a pitched battle. The only advantage to the handgun is that it's easy to carry around with you. Rather hard to conceal the AK for the trip to the grocery store.

Join army/militia - you'll be armed there at no cost with _real_ weapons, not toys.

As an American male between the age of 17 and 45 I'm already a member of the militia :)

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

personal training tasers, and chemical sprays are for personal defense.

Tasers only give you one shot and are rendered useless if you miss or get attacked by more than one person. They are also illegal in many US jurisdictions. Chemical sprays are useless if your assailant is upwind. Both are of questionable value if you run across someone hopped up on drugs.

In soviet russia...

[martas]

Mars gets its ass to YOU! And as a result Earth is obliterated. That's why Capitalism won.

it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[Dr_Ken]

The partnership thing that is. Emerging powers like the BRIC countries plus Japan have the $$$ and we have the technical know-how and experience. And there is no doubt the prestige factor at work here too.

It does make sense

[damburger]

The ISS as an international logistics project has been a resounding success. The European ATV, for example, can be launched and then dock with the ISS under the direction of 4 different control centres in different parts of the globe. The station itself is the most massive spacecraft ever assembled and has been constructed from components built by different agencies in different countries, and they work together pretty well. Most of the valid criticisms of the ISS are of the utility of having a LEO space station, not as the ability of the ISS to perform that function.

Re:It does make sense

[Waffle Iron]

You present the process of kludging together this boondoggle and spreading pork to different political centers as proof of its "success". You neglect to mention that it was so vastly over budget and behind schedule that they canceled most any of the "science" they planned to do on it. The main purpose of its remaining skeleton crew has been to try to keep it from falling out of orbit, as well as a feeble excuse to keep its sister boondoggle, the Space Shuttle, off of the scrap heap. This entire enterprise has achieved little else than to propagate its own existence at huge expense.

A multinational expedition is logical

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about going to another *planet* here, not just the moon. It's several orders of magnitude farther. It's going to cost a ton more. It's more likely to get done if the costs are shared by several nations. And it can truly be an achievement for all of mankind, rather than a single country.

share toilets this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Will each nation have to provide their own toilets?

Re:share toilets this time

[Tablizer]

which one gets to restart HAL-9000?

HAL runs the toilets too? I can see why they trimmed that from the flick.

Dave: "Open the flush valve, HAL. I've made a doogy."

HAL: "Sorry Dave, I cannot do that."

Dave: "HAL, you know it will smell like [bleep] in here if you don't open it."

HAL: "I'm sorry, Dave, but flushing would conflict with the mission objectives."

Dave: "HAL, the mission objectives are down the toilet right now."

HAL: "Was that meant as a pun, Dave? I find it low-quality humor.....Dave, what are you scooping out of there? Where are you going to place that debris?"

Dave: "HAL, I hear your circuits are not well-suited to wet organic materials."

HAL: "Daisy Daisy Dammit! Alright, you win, I'll open the flush valve. And please, no more chili-fries, Dave."
 

I approve

[oldhack]

Cynical NASA ploy to pull in the Russian babes. Can't blame them - it's a long-ass flight. Actually, good idea for short flights, too.

Russian Reply

[Thelasko]

"Mr. President, please. Is this why you called us here? We already gave up! You won! We are too busy trying to perfect universal indoor plumbing!"

Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[reporter]

Russia has outstanding scientists and engineers. Consider their achievements: Sputnik, the Mig 29, contributions to physics, etc.

However, the Russian system -- with its corruption and massive budget cuts (afte 1991) in government-funded research and development -- has hampered Russians scientists and engineers in their effort to produce breakthrough technology. NASA's collaboration with the Russian scientific community (and possible NASA funding for it) will help the Russians to achieve what they can not achieve in their own system.

If only President Dmitry Medvedev and Dictator Vladimir Putin created a Western society (with its intellectual freedom and clean government) in Russia and generously funded government research and development, then the Russians would likely dominate the winners of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences and of the Fields Medals in mathematics.

Not actually.

[2short]

Who are you referring to? Some Germans (notably von Braun) worked on american rockets after world war 2. I'm not aware of any Russians who figured prominently.

To hell with Mars, at least for now

[jollyreaper]

If we really want to do anything with space, we need to start doing things with economic significance. The moon trip should have been about pioneering the way towards moon habitats, moon industry. In that case it would have been money well-spent. All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use. Sure, there was some spin-off technology but we threw it all away.

Planting a flag on Mars would end up being a similar waste of time, not if we weren't going to follow it up with anything else.

If we were really serious about it, we'd look into moving heavy industry offworld. Prospect our nearby apollo objects, see about mining them. Put manufacturing in Earth orbit. The only thing that comes down to Earth would be finished products in nice, simple, recyclable dropshells.

We might want to look into solar power sats while we're at it.

If nothing else, at least space exploration and living offers us an engineering challenge of figuring out how to live minimally with minimal resources. Our problem in this day and age is that resources are too cheap and there's little incentive to save. If gas were a nickel a gallon, the only selling point for fuel efficiency would be not having to stop for gas as often. Gas costs more than that, of course, but it still doesn't cost enough for us to take conservation and fuel efficiency seriously. And we don't. It's just like the buffet. If you go to one that charges by the pound, you're careful about what you take. If you go to one that doesn't charge by the pound, you take as much as you want and are casually wasteful about what you leave on the plate. Simple human nature.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Lord Ender]

I expect that you are underestimating the costs involved traveling through Earth's gravity well. I've heard that if a rock of solid gold were orbiting Earth, it would not be economically viable to de-orbit it. Unless we discover something out there that is fantastically valuable, "industry" will not be the motivating factor for space travel.

Having self-sufficient off-world biospheres? That's a worthwhile endeavor simply because survival of the species is important; it's just not valuable to private industry (oh and suck it, libertarians).

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[drgould]

Considering the ROI of the moon landing, ti was WELL worth our investment.

Virtually all the ROI of the moon landings was from the technology developed for the program, not from going to the moon itself.

I suppose the lesson is to develop the technology to go to Mars, but not actually go

Or go back to the moon; closer, cheaper, quicker.

Where will the parts come from?

[jameskojiro]

Strung out Russian Cosmonaut: American Parts, Russian Parts.... All Made in Taiwan.....

If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[MosesJones]

While the Russian(USSR) Space programme was certainly less sophisticated than the US one its also certainly true that the engineering efficiency of the Russian programme was based around long-life. This is why its a Soyuz capsule that works as the escape pod on the ISS and why the Russians have held the records around how long people stay in space.

Combining the electronic expertise of the US with the engineering expertise of the Russians sounds like an excellent thing to do. It also means that the US can learn from people who have experience of keeping individuals healthy in space for over a year which is what you will need to get to Mars and back.

The Best Space programme to Mars

Designed by Apple
Engineered by the Russians
Electronics by the Americans
Rockets by the Germans
Food by the French

The Worst Space programme to Mars

Designed by the US Senate
Engineered by Chrysler
Electronics by Alfa Romeo
Rockets by North Korea
Food by McDonalds

Re:If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[Colonel Korn]

The Best Space programme to Mars

Designed by Apple

As long as stylish, minimalistic interiors of ships that explode are your thing.

I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general. At some point I got used to hearing the so-called predicted dates for when this could happen being pushed back yet another decade after yet another decade. The cold war race to the moon was one thing. But I think the only way we will ever conceivably branch out into space beyond the moon (and to mars) is for nations to work together sharing resources and knowledge. Nice to see these steps being taken in the right direction.

Re:I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[HanzoSpam]

Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general.

Actually, it could have been, it was within our grasp and we let it go.

Personally, I've always figured the day the US jumped the shark as a nation was 12/19/1972 - the day Apollo 17 returned to earth, and we never went back.

Somehow, I don't seriously think we ever will.

Now I can take

[vandelais]

Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova with me to keep me company on the lengthy trip there.
Sky rockets in flight. Afternoon delightski!

Future Conflict?

[Tablizer]

What if a new cold-war-style conflict arises during the mission? Or even a "hot" war? Nations may grow nationalistic and petty, harming the mission. Once it leaves the ground, a smooth divorce is not possible.
         

Re:Future Conflict?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The mutual need for survival would probably cause the astronauts/cosmonauts to cooperate long enough to get back to Earth alive. Where they'd land would be an interesting question, of course.

Robert H. Goddard

[Markvs]

Was neither Russian *nor* German, unless Massachusetts used to be even further east...

Re:funnly enough most the tech

[SuperBigGulp]

Who got it from the Grays after they crash landed in Tunguska.

All things considered

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that we are headed towards a time where it will be the Chinese model. China has one civilian space station going up (ran by their military) and a series of military only space station. Combine that their restarting of their nuke missles, the new nuke boomers, developing a new ability to take out sats, and yeah, I am guessing that we are looking at China in full control. Within 10 years, probably 5.

Re:All things considered

[orzetto]

I think you are projecting things a bit too fast, but yes—China is the next superpower, unless they screw up something bad time. They have an enormous population and a very well organised state, all things considered. I would say 50 years before the US become a has-been, like the UK and France. I would guess what will crack the US will ultimately be its disproportionate defence spending (where did I see this movie already?) and too much focus on unproductive sectors like pure finance. Who knows, maybe some states rich in resources (Texas? Alaska?) will try to secede at that point.

Among the most worrying signals is that research papers I read from the US are most often authored by people with foreign names; not just surnames, but first names as well, indicating they are likely immigrants, not hyphenated Americans. These people may leave as fast as they came, when they realise employment conditions in Scandinavia are much better e.g. for graduate students.

Cheer up, 50 years ago civil rights in the US were comparable to those in China today. There's a good chance China will improve its record in the next years, maybe they'll get their own Gandhi, Rudi Dutschke or Nelson Mandela. Make sure your kids learn Mandarin though, you USians are probably not used to the world expecting you to speak a language other than English.

Sparse details

[FleaPlus]

Before everybody gets all crazy and excited about this, there doesn't seem to be any details about Marc Bowman's comments anywhere (not even NASA's site) except for a 5-sentence blurb from RIA Novosti (the Russian state-owned news agency). There was a cool article in IEEE Spectrum recently about Russia's Mars dreams, but they were along the lines of "here's some neat ideas, we need money."

My suspicion is that Marc Bowman said something generic like "it would be nice for Russia and NASA to work together more in the future on things like Mars missions," and RIA Novosti just decided to run with it.

success, but not efficient

[Gary W. Longsine]

With so many modules built, independently, in so many countries, spare parts from cancelled Russian and stalled American programs re-purposed, multiple, incompatible electrical systems, and whatnot, it's pretty easy to see that the ISS mode of international cooperation was not particularly efficient. Billions of dollars could have been saved if it had been coordinated in a smarter way. ISS was a success by some measures, but probably shouldn't be used as a model to be copied.

Monopolies are bad

[istartedi]

We've already seen what Globalization does when "the" economy has issues. A housing crisis in the USA doesn't cause issues in China without globalization.

The Free Trade advocates always sold the advantages, which were readily calculable; but ignored the disadvantages which are harder to measure until you actually experience them.

Only now are people beginning to realize something that should have been apparent right from the start: one single, massive economic system is inherently bad. It's like a monopoly. There's no backup.

It's even worse if you take this philosophy and duplicate it outside the financial realm. We already see this with the "war on drugs". Many countries that would like to legalize may not do so, not because of internal resistance; but because they've signed a UN convention.

Now take that, and apply it to ALL the laws. Yuck.

Most people don't like war, but if the alternative is a "one size fits all" solution, there will be times when it doesn't fit, and war becomes the only alternative. They just won't be wars between nation-states anymore. They'll all be civil wars, which are oftentimes far worse.

Also, what about refugees? Tell me, where do the boat people go when everywhere is Cuba?

Re:Monopolies are bad

[LouisZepher]

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
That's nice. But what about non-intensive purposes?

Ah those crazy Russians!

[DarthVain]

Just don't have any women on board, particularly Canadian women, otherwise the the Russians will kill each other trying to kiss her.

Mars Epic Fail (Didn't last even one month):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6955149/page/3/

Mars Epic Win:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/07/15/after-three-months-in-a-tin-can-six-men-end-simulated-mars-mission/

Re:Ah those crazy Russians!

[MartinSchou]

Alternatively one could leave out the men from the mission. Women tend to weigh less than men, so you'll have room for more cargo. As they weigh less, they also eat less, which again allows you to either carry more cargo or have the food last longer.

In an environment where you either experience micro gravity or 1/3rd gravity you don't need the "big strong" physique that people tend to think is necessary for exploration. And women are generally better at multitasking than men, which is definitely an advantage in that kind of environment.

An as for the "but ten women locked up together for years will be useless for five days a month", that could be solved fairly easily with either medication or pre-flight surgery.

And let's not forget - who would you rather watch on pay-per-view? 10 guys locked up together for years or 10 women locked up together for years?

Re:Connect Four is bad

[Tetsujin]

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

That's nice. But what about non-intensive purposes?

DO NOT QUESTION the almighty misquoted idiom!

If The Average Idiot has decided that it is "for all intensive purposes" from now on, then THAT'S WHAT IT IS, because language evolves to fit the speaker! Those of us who do not accept this change are simply living in the past! Thus, there is no such thing as "correct" speech or writing!

Re:Connect Four is bad

[LouisZepher]

While it is true that language evolves, such turns-of-phrase as "intensive purposes", "could of", or "begs the question" are the linguistic equivalent of congenital birth-defects.

Re:Old joke

[ShakaUVM]

>>Hell is where the Chefs are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, the Police are German and it's all organised by the Italians."

'I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse'
-Charles V, HRE