Slashdot Mirror


NASA Boss Says Mars Colonization Will Be Corporate Only

99luftballon writes "The head of NASA Ames Research Center has said that he expects any colonization of Mars, the Moon or asteroids to be done by private companies rather than by NASA. There's some interesting parallels with the East India Company, although that was hardly a triumph of capitalism. From the article: 'Dr. Simon Worden, director at NASA Ames Research Center, told The Register that the agency was firmly enmeshing itself with the private sector, citing cooperation on the Dragon capsule being developed by Elon Musk's SpaceX team as a good example. NASA developed a heat shield material called PICA (Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator), capable of withstanding 1850 degrees Celsius (3360 degrees Fahrenheit), and gave it to SpaceX, who manufactured it.' The article also mentions Google's head of space projects, who has 'Intergalactic Federation King Almighty and Commander of the Universe' on her business cards."

299 comments

  1. Kim Stanley Robinson by a_ghostwheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well - we already even have a business plan.

    1. Re:Kim Stanley Robinson by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      read the first one, didn't care for it so never finished the trilogy. A better book, if I remember correctly, was Mars Crossing, it was well written from a technical standpoint and made me never want to travel in space unless it was like Star Trek, shattering my childhood dreams. All the very real problems they had, the confines, the hostility towards life. No thanks.

    2. Re:Kim Stanley Robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I was going to post.. Whomever gets sent to Mars for this project should have the Mars series as required reading. Well, everyone should read it, it's got great economic and social ideals.

  2. China by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Colonization of Mars will be done by China. What's it got to do with NASA?

    1. Re:China by unixisc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean China will take all its billion people and move over to Mars?

    2. Re:China by 99luftballon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We'll never solve population pressure with space travel, it costs too much to get into orbit. But I'd bet the Chinese are considering mining operations off planet.

    3. Re:China by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well it's not called the Red Planet for nothing...

    4. Re:China by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is not certain. If NASA is allowed to get private space going, then it is a certainty that by 2020, that NASA via private space will be on the moon. And likewise, within 5 years later, private space will go to Mars. Why? Profits. By building multiple private space stations in orbit, multiple nations will want to use them. From there, if companies like SpaceX, ULA, Bigelow will want to get to the moon. Why again? Profits. They KNOW that nations will pay much more to go to the moon and explore. So will other companies. The ability to mine for water and send it back to the ISS and private space stations much cheaper than from earth would be a big deal. Likewise, the ability to mine Uranium, breed it, and then fuel rocket engines with it to go to Mars will be a strong demand.

      America DOES have a problem. We have to get past politicians like Hatch, Coffman, Hutchinson, Shelby, Wolfe, Nelson, etc., but I know that even Coffman is already being called on his destructive actions against NASA. The others will be looked at as well.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:China by hoboroadie · · Score: 0

      {chuckle} I have been so telling everyone since the '70s that the Chinese were the ones 'going to eat our lunch.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    6. Re:China by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't bet on that. They have their own problems to solve with the money. Colonization takes a lot of money. By the time this starts being a real issue they will have a shrinking or flat population and that has a whole wack of social problems.

      And it's not like a statement like this from NASA means anything. By 2016/2017 there will definitely be a new policy for NASA, with new governments with new priorities, and they could completely change their minds in any number of directions. They could decide it will be the US colonizing mars, it could be the Europeans deciding this is how they'll get the greeks out of the Euro once and for all, who knows. At best this is a cue to the private companies that for the moment NASA isn't going to stand in the way. But times change.

    7. Re:China by lightknight · · Score: 1

      We're working on that.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:China by asm2750 · · Score: 1

      By the time they are able to even get a person on Mars their eventual social and environmental issues will catch up with them.

    9. Re:China by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Frankly, given the current situation, growing population also has it's problems. Implying shrinking or flat population is worse than the current widespread starvation sounds a bit weird.

    10. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As much as this is suggested, I highly doubt it... at least not without somebody else going there first and developing the technologies independent of China.

      While I will admit that China may be a major player in the future of spaceflight, their culture is one that does not encourage technological innovation, and their governmental system is also one that does not encourage innovation other than trying to figure out how to make stuff cheaper by cutting quality.

      I am also not really impressed with the progress that they are making in terms of spaceflight. They are doing stuff, but it is very slow (especially compared to what the good old USSR did back in the 1950's and 1960's.... and don't even get me started with a comparison to NASA in the 1950's and 1960's) and their operational tempo is absolutely pathetic. By operational tempo, they are setting themselves up to a whole bunch of problems in the future because their ground crews and engineers simply aren't gaining any experience in actually putting people into space. It has been a couple of years since the last manned spaceflight by China, and people do forget how to do simple things if you don't practice those skills. For example, would you trust an aircraft mechanic who only repaired an engine once every 3-5 years? Why would you trust a rocket engine built by a team of technicians who only built one set of engines every 3-5 years?

      On top of that, the operational tempo they have right now isn't even sufficient for maintaining a LEO space station, much less trying to establish any sort of outpost/base somewhere beyond LEO. They simply don't have the personnel who are trained with the experience necessary to get much done in space. Both Roscosmos and NASA have those people, and a number of private companies in both Russia and America have veterans of those programs to get private astronaut corps of their own going. This could change, but it would take a substantial increase in the Chinese space budget and a real commitment on the part of the Chinese government to really get stuff done in space. The European Union (either through the ESA or some other similar organization) might also get into the game, and to me they are the one other potential rival in terms of getting a substantial manned presence in space. The Europeans have the technology and the wealth necessary to pull it off, what they lack is the political will to accomplish much.

    11. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was a plan put forward a number of years ago to try and have a manned Soviet presence on Mars by 2017 (and the centennial of the October Revolution as a general goal). That would have been an amazing project if it had ever been pulled off so far as a really impressive and fitting accomplishment in terms of propaganda and publicity that certainly would have fit the old Soviet bureaucratic mentality. Unfortunately such plans ended with not just the death of Sergei Korolev, but also with the general collapse of the USSR, not to mention how the N1 rocket was shelved and officially disavowed that could have developed the technology necessary to pull off such an endeavor.

      I certainly don't see anything that the Chinese are doing which could pull off anything close to that.

    12. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not certain. If NASA is allowed to get private space going, then it is a certainty that by 2020, that NASA via private space will be on the moon. And likewise, within 5 years later, private space will go to Mars.

      NASA doesn't need to "get private space going". What NASA needs to do is get out of the way and let the FAA Office of Commercial Spaceflight set the standards and do its job, and for NASA to assume more of a role like the NACA did back in the early part of the 20th Century towards aviation... but applied toward spaceflight too. If there is money to be made in space, the U.S. Federal government also needs to quit doing stuff like ITAR that deliberately undermines private space initiatives.

      If the U.S. Federal government wanted to so something really impressive in terms of encouraging private spaceflight, Congress would pass legislation that would allow all companies and private individuals for the next 50 years to be able to avoid paying any federal taxes for any activities that primarily are conducted in space. Make it long enough for whatever laws get into place to be predictable and for some serious long-term planning to take place. It wouldn't be a huge loss for the U.S. government at the moment, because the amount of commercial activity in space is nearly zero, or at least so small that the loss of revenue wouldn't even be missed in terms of balancing the federal budget. That would also cut out that list of senators who are in effect damaging the American spaceflight efforts as their pork barrel projects really wouldn't matter and be seen as the irrelevant projects that they are.

    13. Re:China by lightknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes money, but more along the lines of technological achievements. We need a way to and from Mars, under a week's time, and that's only going to happen with some technological development.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    14. Re:China by lightknight · · Score: 2

      And when the first settlers arrived, they performed tests on the soil, and found hemoglobin among various other oddities.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    15. Re:China by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point I think. The point is that if anyone does start a lunar colony it won't be the US. I think this is the director's real point as well. So if it's going to happen at all it has to be some other government that has money to spend on such things. And who else but the Chinese? If the Chinese don't do it then no one will.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:China by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I will admit that China may be a major player in the future of spaceflight, their culture is one that does not encourage technological innovation, and their governmental system is also one that does not encourage innovation other than trying to figure out how to make stuff cheaper by cutting quality.

      China's drive to cut costs is at our request, and when they do what we ask, we taunt them for it. That's not a fault with the Chinese. The Chinese government is more capitalistic than the US government.

    17. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because all that private research and innovation in high speed flying and orbital flight just renews one's faith in corporations leading us to a bold new future. Oh, wait, except that what they did was largely because of government and military contracts--and their commercial ventures were born out of the results of the work they had to do on those contracts. There's a reason early airliners were largely converted bomber designs. The engineering was done already.

      You seriously, really expect private industry to actually put money into research and development that doesn't have a 3 month return in the double digits without some prompting or assistance? You expect this stuff to cost less even when taking CEO's gold-plated bathroom fixtures and private jets and stuff into account? What about all those corporate bonuses that have to be paid, and stock options that need to be exercised and all that?

      Private industry can be counted on to do one thing: take research paid for by someone else, "invent" things to do with it, and make themselves LOOK cheaper because they never put the money into R&D in the first place--or if they did, they got someone else to pay them for it while somehow maintaining ownership rights over the work, or getting laws passed that the government has to just give them what we the people paid for. It didn't used to be like that, but these days a company that does a lot of startup work and groundbreaking research without an immediate product is toast.

      This is why free market capitalism is a pack of lies. Internalized profits. Externalized costs (which you and I pay for). No long term thinking.

      You're right about one thing though: NASA is rarely intentionally inefficient, but they get strapped into being that way because of corrupt senators and their pork barrel projects making sure the supply chain for everything spreads out across the whole country. If you want space flight to work this is what you do: take a bunch of people who give a damn and have skills and talent, give them sufficient funding, tell them what your objective is, and stay out of their way for a little while. Then after all that, private industry can come in and make profits off of somebody else's work, as usual.

    18. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOeg_2X43OI

    19. Re:China by flyneye · · Score: 1

      A fine start indeed, but let's encourage some Corporations to pack up and leave too.Call me a curmudgeon, but there are just some people/companies/subcultures that we could exile with no remorse.

              Could Jackson Browne have been a prophet?

      Last night I watched the news from Washington, the capitol
      The Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, like Russians will
      Now we've got all this room, we've even got the moon
      And I hear the U.S.S.R. will be open soon
      As vacation land for lawyers in love

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    20. Re:China by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      who else but the Chinese? If the Chinese don't do it then no one will.

      The Muslim Ummah taken as a whole is perfectly capable of it. Middle East money, Iranian, Pakistani and Malaysian technology, badda boom, badda bing, Mosques on Mars.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    21. Re:China by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sergei Korolev died in 1966, and the N1 was finally canceled in 1976. So, by "a number of years ago" you mean "decades ago." If the Soviets could plan in (say) 1970 to land on Mars 47 years later, I don't see why the Chinese couldn't plan now to land on Mars in (say) 2049, which would be the Centennial of their revolution. And, if they pursue this goal, I think they could, in that time frame, pull it off.

       

    22. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was almost a Mars Colony Race. It's kind of a shame it never really happened though. I think the Russian's and American's realized that it was simply crazy. What with nuclear powered rockets and the difficulty of living in space. But then again We both could have found Comrades/Patriots willing to go for a one way colonization mission. I have read the that NERVA rocket's ability to bring a man to Mars may have ultimately sealed it's fate as far as funding goes.

      On the other hand privatization doesn't have to be corporate if we could get enough well off geeks to fund a pirate NASA.

    23. Re:China by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping they find Natasha Henstridge

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    24. Re:China by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think mining anything from the moon and sending it to the ISS is cheaper than just launching it from Earth? You think bringing anything back from Mars could be profitable? You think space exploration is worth anything more than science (such a priority among governments these days!) and national dick-waving?

      Barring some radical and far-off breakthroughs in space travel, the only material that could possibly be profitable to retrieve from anywhere outside the planet is He3 from the Moon, for use in fusion power. As long as we are pushing spaceships from A to B this won't change.

      The places worth exploring from a scientific standpoint are Europa and Enceladus. I'd be shocked if there was no life on them. Mars, it's a barren desert, we'd be lucky to find anything in the nearly liquidless, radiation-scorched wasteland that spans the entire planet. Let the Chinese entertain us with manned missions to it while some smarter country - maybe the US - goes for the interesting stuff. Let them bring back more barren red soil while somebody smarter brings back alien life.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    25. Re:China by cobbaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are doing stuff, but it is very slow (especially compared to what the good old USSR did back in the 1950's and 1960's.... and don't even get me started with a comparison to NASA in the 1950's and 1960's) and their operational tempo is absolutely pathetic.

      Sorry to burst the bubble, but it took Americans a couple of decades before they mastered fully automated docking. The Chinese accomplished this on their very first attempt.

      Their progress seems to go very slow, but underneath it is an admirable long term plan (5 years plans that fit into ten year plans, that fit themselves into longer term plans!). I guess that's the advantage of having a dictatorship. They are not that far behind on what they announced back in 1999 (manned flight in 2002 (done in 2003), moon probe in 2007 (done in 2007), space station and docking around 2010 (done in 2011)...).
      This summer they will man their first space station, twice. Next year Tiangong 2 will go up, by 2015 they will have 20 ton modules (tiangong 3) and improved launch power (CZ5).
      Next year also the Chinese will land a rover on the Moon: first rover on the Moon since the Soviets in 1976, but more importantly it will be the only rover on the Moon.

      Their Shenzhou spacecraft program might resemble the American Mercury or Gemini, but it includes all Apollo features as well. By 2020 they will have landed on the Moon, to stay a bit longer than a couple of days!

      --
      European Linux user, living in Antwerp
    26. Re:China by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      New Governments?

      There is 1 (one) other government, and its views on space align very closely with the current government, ie, good in theory, but not a quick enough return on investment to bee seen in our term (turn?) in power.

    27. Re:China by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      It's not shrinking, or flat population that is a problem- it's an aging population that is the problem. More mouths to feed with fewer young able-bodied labourers.

      Simply put (and this is over simplified)- the worst challenge to an individual nation-state is an aging population. The worst challenge for the entire earth is over-population. Not enough children = problem for nation. Too many children = problem for humanity. Nation-states act in the best interest of themselves; thus even though it is bad for humanity- many places with declinining birth rates are actually in favour of increasing birth rates.

      Many places in Europe would be facing population decline without immigration (some are declining)- and the problems of aging are not without concern.

      An ideal situation would be a growing population... (so it isn't aging as a group) - and somewhere to put all these excess bodies. Without war to kill off young men (which, no, I'm not in favour of)- you're stuck with too problems- a grey population or a growing populations.

      If only there were a planet nearby we could stick some people on and continue to expand.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    28. Re:China by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course they wouldn't use their own spacecraft, they'd just hijack someone elses...

    29. Re:China by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't bet on that. They have their own problems to solve with the money. Colonization takes a lot of money. By the time this starts being a real issue they will have a shrinking or flat population

      [citation needed]

      *I* think the most likely scenario is a mass dieoff due to pandemic, but it's not impossible that won't happen, and due to finding new and disgusting things for the poor to eat while the rich continue as always, we may continue to grow our population, on yeasts, algaes, and soylent green.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:China by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It's not shrinking, or flat population that is a problem- it's an aging population that is the problem. More mouths to feed with fewer young able-bodied labourers.

      The problem is not and never has been enough food. The problem is getting the food into the mouths. The problem with that is not and never has been the ability to do it. It is the will.

      If only there were a planet nearby we could stick some people on and continue to expand.

      Without a space elevator you're not "sticking" anyone anywhere. There is no other lift technology even imagined yet which can energy-effectively do the job of lifting a significant percentage of earth's population out of this gravity well, except MAYBE skyhooks, which have all the problems of space elevators and then some.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:China by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Muslim Ummah taken as a whole is perfectly capable of it. Middle East money, Iranian, Pakistani and Malaysian technology, badda boom, badda bing, Mosques on Mars.

      That region will never go to space without Israel on board and that will never happen unless one of those nations conquers all the others.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:China by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We won't see a space elevator in our lifetime. We certainly won't see sky hooks- not on earth.

      I expect to see man on Mars in my lifetime- and I believe it will be a permenant station. I don't think we will go UNTIL we can sustain a base there- a trip and back doesn't make sense.

      I don't expect we will see mass migration to Mars or elsewhere in our lifetime... or my children's lifetime. My comment about "if only there were a planet" was more tongue-in-cheek.

      Eventually, yes. There will be many men who live outside of earth's confines... it won't be for a long time- and most likely not with any technology for which we currently have full understanding.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    33. Re:China by beckerist · · Score: 1

      Mosques on Mars: Starring Bruce Campbell.
      I'd watch it.

    34. Re:China by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Well, it's already too late for the centennial of the 1911 revolution establishing the Republic of China, but they still have plenty of time for the centennial of the 1949 revolution and the People's Republic of China.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    35. Re:China by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      I applaud their efforts, but even without doing direct reverse engineering, accomplishing any engineering project is vastly easier if you have seen that someone else has done it before. So until the Chinese do something that the Americans and Russians haven't already done, they haven't really proved anything in space. As far as building on the American and Russian space technology of the 20th century and applying 21st century improvements where they are useful, I'll put Space-X up against the Chinese and show a similar pattern of achievement.

    36. Re:China by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If NASA is allowed to get private space going, then it is a certainty that by 2020, that NASA via private space will be on the moon

      Is it? What financial incentive is there for profit seeking organizations to visit the moon in under 8 years? What would "multiple nations" want to use "multiple private space stations" for? And if they do want it, why don't they build them themselves instead of paying a middleman to do it?

      This is no certainty anywhere but your head. It allows you, upon the failure of private space exploration to materialize, to blame politics instead of the senseless economics of space.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of space exploration. If I had my way NASA and the DoD would swap budgets. But it is what it is, pure research. Pure research is best done by publicly funded academics.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    37. Re:China by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      If the Soviets could plan in (say) 1970 to land on Mars 47 years later, I don't see why the Chinese couldn't plan now to land on Mars in (say) 2049, which would be the Centennial of their revolution.

      Yeah, because if the Chinese in 1912 had planned how they were going to be living in 1949, it would all have worked out marvellously.

      Central planning is a silly idea at the best of times. Central planning for forty years in the future is laughable.

    38. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I would hope that "their" spaceships would work, seeing as how they either bought the technology from the Russians or US companies, or just stole it. It's hard to get it wrong when someone else sells you a working solution.

    39. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 2

      China's drive to cut costs is at our request, and when they do what we ask, we taunt them for it. That's not a fault with the Chinese. The Chinese government is more capitalistic than the US government.

      China may encourage "a free market", and certainly has a tax structure to reward business development in a way that I only wish the U.S. government would do at the moment (claims otherwise not withstanding), what China lacks is personal liberties and the ability to really think outside the box. That is something which is very much a part of Chinese culture, where engineers in China are squashed like a bug if they speak up about an issue and try to come up with a solution that hasn't been thought up by upper management.

      The drive to cut cost in China, what there is of it, is a part of the fact that for the "independent companies" in China will willingly cut each other's throats in the marketplace to get the business from a potential competitor. This is one aspect of Chinese culture and government authority which has changed from say 40 years ago as private citizens are encouraged to become capitalists and take financial risks. They just can't take political risks, so they are still ever so limited in what they can do, so making cheap stuff that doesn't require imagination is what they end up making.

      Japan, which does have political liberty, has engineers who do dream up some really crazy stuff and can innovate. Instead Japan (in part because it is a much smaller country compared to China) encourages monopolistic practices and the cut-throat competition to undercut each other doesn't exist in the Japanese economy. Japan hasn't always been that way and was more like China... but they made the mistake of invading the USA and in a way became more like America as a result.

    40. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Landing on the Moon is going to be a much harder challenge than anything they've done so far. I'm not saying that they can't pull it off, but what China will end up doing is a "flags and footprints" mission and not something to stay any longer. You might see a Chinese flag on the Moon and perhaps duplicate Apollo.... but all of these claims that they are going to stay longer are just fear mongering.

    41. Re:China by geoffball · · Score: 1

      So the goal of the United States should be 2076?

    42. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Central planning for forty years in the future is laughable.

      Capitalism's not doing too hot at that right now either.

      Probably for the same reasons.

    43. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seriously, really expect private industry to actually put money into research and development that doesn't have a 3 month return in the double digits without some prompting or assistance? You expect this stuff to cost less even when taking CEO's gold-plated bathroom fixtures and private jets and stuff into account? What about all those corporate bonuses that have to be paid, and stock options that need to be exercised and all that?

      Private industry can be counted on to do one thing: take research paid for by someone else, "invent" things to do with it, and make themselves LOOK cheaper because they never put the money into R&D in the first place--or if they did, they got someone else to pay them for it while somehow maintaining ownership rights over the work, or getting laws passed that the government has to just give them what we the people paid for. It didn't used to be like that, but these days a company that does a lot of startup work and groundbreaking research without an immediate product is toast.

      You obviously know next to nothing about capitalism, corporate charters, or what it takes to actually put together a business. All I pointed out was a potential way to encourage existing businesses to perform tasks in space and to encourage a vibrant and thriving commercial spaceflight industry that could potentially make the ability to go into space affordable because it would be in the self-interest of those engaged in the activity to do so.

      BTW, "gold plated bathroom fixtures" might be of interest to shareholders, especially if that goes against the terms of the corporate charter to "maximize profits and increase shareholder equity". CEOs can be sued for misappropriation of corporate funds, and gold-plating executive bathrooms is one easy thing to point out excesses that need to be brought into check. If you want that to stop, make corporations to be required to answer to their shareholders and empower the ordinary investor to demand a proper accounting of how corporate funds are spent. That also would end up dealing with these "excess" bonuses you are talking about... unless those bonuses really are ended up increasing shareholder dividends or equity. CEO salaries and bonuses are something that won't ever be unlimited, and perhaps at the moment is even excessive to the point of being detrimental to the success of the company itself.

      One of the reasons why many companies have a three month investment window is in part due to the regulatory environment that exists in America at the moment with SEC regulations that encourage such practices. It is also something the major "institutional investors" demand... which is IMHO something short sighted and should be curtailed in some way. It is something that can be changed BTW, but it would take some hard work in terms of changing regulations and removing some of the corruption in Congress to get it to happen. There are also other ways to organize corporations that could avoid some of the problems mentioned above as well... I just won't get into them in detail. Look up "employee owned corporations" while you are at it though, along with "cooperatives". It doesn't have to be strictly Wall Street type corporations funded by just a few mega wealthy investors.

      In the right legal environment, I do expect that a for profit corporation can and would make long term investments in research and development to significantly expand the scope of humanity, including making the R&D necessary for a serious expansion into the rest of the Solar System. I am suggesting that it is the current legal environment which is holding back American companies from doing nearly as much in terms of significantly going into space and is one of the reasons why America is stuck in LEO with no native capacity to send astronauts into space in the first place.

    44. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I love this song! I am inspired to make a video using that sound track.

      I had also never heard this song before, and I'm glad to have the link.

    45. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There wasn't anybody in the Soviet space program willing to stand up to the politburo or able to maneuver through the political minefields like Korolev, so his death really was ultimately something that hurt the Soviet space flight efforts. That the bureaucracy he built up took more than a decade to fall apart (and never really did completely.... his "company", RKK Energia, is still in business today). The N1 was effectively cancelled in about 1970 when the Soviet Union was not going to have the first person on the Moon, which was also where the official Soviet political dogma at the time was that a race to the Moon never happened and that the whole of the Apollo program was one of needless excess of capitalist spending. It is that sort of propaganda that I was referring to in terms of official disavowal of the N1 program that essentially made going to Mars impossible.

      There was an effort within the Soviet Union to perhaps revive that effort in the 1980's and a Soviet settlement of Mars with the 2017 goal as something very realistic at the time. The problems I mentioned earlier though sealed the fate of trying to get that through the political process which was necessary in the Soviet Union and kept it from becoming anything serious beyond getting MIR built. That was an impressive accomplishment for the Soviet space program though.

    46. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 2

      There are other industrial uses of He3 besides fusion energy. One that comes to mind is the ability to use He3 as a refrigerant, as it stays in a gaseous state at a far colder temperature than any other substance (if you want to get into super conductor research for example). It also has additional applications in general nuclear energy research as well which has a consistent demand worldwide for obtaining that particular elemental isotope.

      BTW, I do think that mining stuff on the Moon could be made eventually cheaper in terms of shipping costs to LEO than sending stuff up from the surface of the Earth, and certainly the delta-v is lower in terms of going from the Moon to LEO than it is to go from the Earth to LEO (much less to places like the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points). About the only way significant industrial activity is going to take place beyond the Earth is if Lunar mining starts to take place. You can also use mass drivers and railguns to push stuff from the Moon's surface to LEO (or at least the Lagrangian points), and railguns which have the necessary delta-v have already been built which exceed Lunar escape velocity. Once the equipment is built, you could get a ton of material delivered to almost any point near the Earth but in space for a price cheaper than it would take to bring a liter of water from the Earth. I also think that the price of sending a liter of water from the Earth to LEO could drop significantly as well.

    47. Re:China by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      You were being so logical and practical right up until the Europa part. Mars isn't a barren rock. There is liquid water under it's radiationless surface. It has also had just as long a history as Earth, much of which were under conditions where it's atmosphere was denser and it's core was warmer. We know that bacteria can survive trips through space. If there is any body in the solar system likely to be sustaining transplanted earth life (from a terrestrial meteor impact), it's Mars. Europa and Enceladus are much further away, more hostile to life than Mars, and orbit planets that are notorious for scooping up debris. As for life evolving independently...yeah the moons of Saturn and Jupiter present possibilities but Mars presents even greater possibilities because it's far more Earth like now and in it's past than Europa and Enceladus.

    48. Re:China by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      it's far more Earth like now and in it's past than Europa and Enceladus.

      No it's not. It lacks useful amounts of water, lacks radiation protection and lacks areas of stable high temperature. And it's been that way for a couple billion years.

      Europa probably has an ocean of water under it's ice, has a kilometer of ice to provide radiation protection and has volcanic activity to provide zones of high temperature. That also gives it potential for higher forms of life which Mars does not have.

      Plus transplanted bacteria are a lot less interesting than independently evolved life.

    49. Re:China by celle · · Score: 2

      "Sorry to burst the bubble, but it took Americans a couple of decades before they mastered fully automated docking. The Chinese accomplished this on their very first attempt."

          It's very easy to do something when everyone else already has and you have access to all their mistakes. The chinese also have access to evolved technology and experience now to make things happen right as opposed to 50 years ago when the US and Russia were doing it all for the first time ever and developing and running the tech out of the seat of their pants. The chinese aren't doing anything that hasn't been done by the rest of us decades ago.

    50. Re:China by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      FYI: Yes you can find Hemoglobin in soil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leghemoglobin

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    51. Re:China by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Too bad you won't see the future that'll prove you wrong.

    52. Re:China by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      No it's not. It lacks useful amounts of water, lacks radiation protection and lacks areas of stable high temperature. And it's been that way for a couple billion years.

      The word "useful" is relative. It could be sufficient for sustaining whatever life could be left over from an earlier warming period. Under the surface of Mars, pressures and temperatures are currently adequate for liquid water, and the rock offers plenty of protection from radiation. So I stand by my statement that it's statistically more likely to find life on Mars. But I agree, we don't know much about the other two destinations and they're probably much more interesting to investigate at this point.

    53. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Central planning is a silly idea at the best of times. Central planning for forty years in the future is laughable.

      Unfortunately, planning quarter-to-quarter is even worse.

    54. Re:China by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Sending water or any easily mined item from the moon to LEO is MUCH MUCH cheaper then sending it from anyplace on earth to LEO.
      MUCH cheaper, once the initial investment. That is exactly why there are more than 3 companies that being put together to go to the moon to do just that.
      The reason is the moon is ~1/6 G.
      In fact, we may actually find that getting water from CERES (an asteroid further out than Mars) is MUCH MUCH cheaper than the moon. Why? Because it is 1/5 G of the moon. IOW, 1/22 G of the earth. Getting anything into LEO is all about the ability to get anything into space. As to Ceres, an inexpensive mass driver can actually break off ice and throw it at earth. Even on the moon, we have the ability to launch cargo cheaply, after the initial investment.

      No where did I suggest that mars to earth is profitable. The only possible thing that can be transported from Mars to Earth would be something that is only found on mars and could not be produced here. The reason? 1/3 G.

      Finally, exploration is wonderful. BUT, it has to be balanced. We need to get off this fucking rock. Likewise, if we are going to do exploration, we need CHEAP access to space. How do you get that? You have rockets launch once a week or even once a day. Then you have CHEAP access. For that, you want business and other reasons to go to space. We do not need the GD SLS. We need cheap rockets like F9, F Heavy, and even FXX.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    55. Re:China by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Bigelow Aerospace has more than 12 nations that want to use their private LEO based space station. Nations like Sweden, Canada, Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. How many of them can afford to put up a cheap human launch system within 5 years, let alone a space station? How many of them want to go to the moon like US will do via private space within 9 years (assuming that the wankers in CONgress stop what they are doing)? All of these nations want to put astronauts in space. They can not afford to build their own launch systems, let alone space stations in 10 years, let alone 4. As it is, SpaceX will be able to launch humans for 20 million / seat in 4 years, if we can stop idiots like Coffman, hatch, Hutchinson, Wolfe, Shelby, and nelson. In each of those cases, these politicans are putting their pocket ahead of the nation's needs. And it is PURE politics that is interfering, not poor economics.

      As to budgets, if you prefer, we can become like China. China's space program is part of their military. The new space station that they have up there will not be allowing any none chinese up there (though I would not be surprised to see North Koreans, Iranians, or even Venezuelans go up there). It is considered a base by them. Why? Because their space program is 100% military.

      And NOTHING about space is PURE research. It is mostly about economics and national pride.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    56. Re:China by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, though, the rich Arab countries like KSA hate Iran, quite possibly even more so than they hate Israel.

    57. Re:China by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Problem is, we (and I mean both US and USSR here) stopped doing all these things. If they fast-track to the point where we did so, and then keep going, even at a slower pace, it's still fast enough.

    58. Re:China by Hatta · · Score: 1

      All of these nations want to put astronauts in space. They can not afford to build their own launch systems

      They're going to be paying for the construction of a launch system anyway. Things don't get cheaper when you pay a middlle man to do it. The middle man pockets the profit, and you end up paying more for the same thing you could have done yourself.

      If what you're getting at is that a dozen small nations can't individually afford their own lauch platforms, privatization is a dumb way to solve that problem. Those twelve nations could pool their resources and fund a non-profit foundation to build the launch system. That way they could all use the launch system and avoid paying extra use fees.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    59. Re:China by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Really? Please show us one nation that launches into space that has a 100% gov. operation that does their own R&D and building of all of their launch systems? And it has to be cheaper than SpaceX is to launch.

      If you do not have an example, of that, well, .....

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    60. Re:China by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Westminster parlance. In your case every 2 years you get a new government. In 10 years there's no reason to believe the people deciding on budgets will have the same plan they do today. Not necessarily a better plan. But different.

    61. Re:China by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

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

      Both the UN and US project that chinas population will peak around 2030, and start declining from there. In other words, 18 years. If 18 years from now there are major population movements to mars I'll be stunned given that earth and mars only get close every 2 years that in 9 cycles we'll have made any meaningful progress, given that the next closest crossing is in august and bugger all has been happening around that. We would be very lucky to have any sort of meaningful lander get to mars for 2016/2017, which is a far cry from landing people let alone landing a meaningful number of people who will do anything.

      (Note that while I realize you want to launch based on when the rocket will get there, not when the planets actually align, but the 26month cycle still applies).

      There's a difference between being able to put a person on Mars and get them back, to putting enough people on Mars for it to matter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, china will still have an astronomical number of people, but an aging, shrinking population is going to leave them trying to solve a lot of very serious problems on the ground in china, and all of the political upheaval that will come with an educating population trying to cope with an aging one.

    62. Re:China by jafac · · Score: 1

      Obviously. Because they'll need Chinese laborers to build the railroads to haul back all that martian gold.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    63. Re:China by jafac · · Score: 1

      Gawd, effing HATCH! Finally, someone else GETS it!
      We need ROCKET SCIENTISTS to design our space vehicles. NOT POLITICIANS!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    64. Re:China by FairAndHateful · · Score: 1

      I certainly don't see anything that the Chinese are doing which could pull off anything close to that.

      They have over a billion people and are going to select a person with the unlikely name of Yertle as their next leader?

    65. Re:China by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      There were several Mars exploration plans. Korolev himself considered much the same techniques for propulsion as the people on the other side did: nuclear thermal or nuclear electric. At the time solar panel surface area, or space nuclear reactor dissipation technology were too lousy to make nuclear electric work but he saw it as an option in the longer term. Back in the US several people arrived at much the same conclusions (von Braun, Stuhlinger). Then there were the more far fetched ideas like Orion but that was kind of overkill for just going to Mars. It was more well suited for going to the space beyond Jupiter and perhaps into nearby stars. If you consider space to be divided into regions like cislunar, inside the asteroid belt, beyond the asteroid belt, etc. the technologies most suitable for propulsion change. Solar anything is problematic as you get further away from the Sun you need more surface area to be able to do anything at all.

      The Chinese space program proceeds at a snail's pace and as their leaders switch from former military men or engineers, which are practically oriented, to lawyers and the usual fluff, you will stop seeing the pursuit of major infrastructure projects be it in space or at China. They will make Long March 5 and launch their own satellite constellations, build some probes, have their space stations, but anything beyond that is merely the wishes of someone working on a bureau with no real economic control of the country.

    66. Re:China by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Chelomei did get Proton (UR-500) working properly and that could have been used to launch a lunar flyby with horrendous risks. Not having the larger launcher (which was repeatedly stalled at the government level because they simply did not want to spend the money on something they perceived as only useful for propaganda) was the issue. Chelomei did propose an alternative to N1 but no one would built it after the Nedelin disaster. Proton was supposed to be among the first in a family of modular rockets which would scale until N1 size (UR-700). Since the Americans got there first and he lost his main political backer Nikita Krushev his rocket did not get built.

    67. Re:China by Teancum · · Score: 1

      This is interesting that you pointed out the personal motivations of Nikita Khrushchev. In the USA, much of the funding for NASA came from Lyndon B. Johnson and his personal interest in seeing the Apollo program get done. The 1950's version of LBJ is something that simply doesn't exist today in American politics, as he ruled the U.S. Senate (and indeed essentially controlled the U.S. Congress as a whole as a result) as his own private fiefdom. How he went about doing that could make him appear to be an utterly heartless bastard, but his personal support for spaceflight was certainly there... and his name upon the NASA manned spaceflight building Houston, Texas was certainly well justified (including the fact that it was built in Texas in the first place instead of Washington DC). When LBJ decided not to run for re-election in 1968, it could be argued that pretty much sealed the fate of NASA as an agency.

      While it was a little bit different when LBJ became President, his political control of the U.S. Senate was still incredibly strong and could get just about any legislation he personally wanted to get passed to move through that body. If anything, it was when the Vietnam War was collapsing and some people in the Senate started to get a backbone saying "No" to LBJ that he knew his power was pretty much at an end.

    68. Re:China by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While I point the fingers at all of those neo-cons (and a dem or two), the fact is, that the SLS is actually designed by Boeing, Ball, etc. IOW, all of the folks involved in the shuttle. Now few think about this, or admit it, but you have businesses telling our pols how to vote.
      That is the very definition of fascism. I mean we all scream about it, but there is no better example of fascism in effect here in America, then the SLS.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. Indentured Servants by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how many people will end up as indentured servants unable to purchase transport back to earth, working in dangerous working conditions on a world run by corporations. They'll be lured by false promises, or maybe even sent by countries with overpopulated prisons.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    1. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like the US and Australia? ... I am not an ozzie so I wonder about indentured servents. But this is how people came ot the new world and how slavery started in the south.

    2. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Between Planets" might not have been so far off.

    3. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder how many people will end up as indentured servants unable to purchase transport back to earth, working in dangerous working conditions on a world run by corporations. They'll be lured by false promises, or maybe even sent by countries with overpopulated prisons.

      Well.. Worked for australia

    4. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, this video will happen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcUBI-YVRY8

    5. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Downbelow, the brown sector dwellers

    6. Re:Indentured Servants by sconeu · · Score: 1
      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Indentured Servants by sconeu · · Score: 1

      You mean "Logic of Empire"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but do not worry, I, Quaid, will start the reactor.

    9. Re:Indentured Servants by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      "Downbelow" is the unofficial name for Brown Sector.

      The dwellers are called "Lurkers"

    10. Re:Indentured Servants by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      But at least we'll be able to race hovercars.

    11. Re:Indentured Servants by hodma727 · · Score: 2

      Mars, a prison for the modern age, just like Australia was in its time. This time around it can be for copy write infringements.

    12. Re:Indentured Servants by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Uhh, 0? Just because you call them "corporations" doesn't change anything, it's human colonization. You could ponder the same thing in 17th century America. "Oh noes, will those poor pilgrims be indentured servants unable to purchase transport back to England?!"

    13. Re:Indentured Servants by happyhamster · · Score: 1

      >> I wonder how many people will end up as indentured servants

      A lot. They will all die after working themselves to death. In a hundred years, some wide-eyed university researcher might write a paper about the "human cost" of colonizing the space, that will be read by a few and understood by fewer. That is how humanity expands its frontiers. It's not moral, but it's practical... and sad .

    14. Re:Indentured Servants by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But in a few centuries, the parties which sniffed their noses at the chance of advance colonization of this or that planet will hate themselves.

      A few words here and there, and someone else could have ended up with Australia. That's an entire continent. Mind you, an entire continent filled with some of the most deadly animals on earth, but it's still a continent that people thrive on.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    15. Re:Indentured Servants by lightknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fear of the unknown. Some people will argue that when it came time to colonize the Americas, we knew they had fresh water / food / etc., but reality speaks otherwise -> most of the people involved did not comprehend what they were getting into, and entire colonies died out.

      With Mars, an argument could be made of the same. There will be people scared to death of life on another planet (let alone a trip through space), and there will be people who will die on Mars during colonization. Sometimes through the hostile environment, more likely through human artifice. But if you want a new beginning, or are just a rugged survivalist who wants to put their skills to the test, you will be a part of something great. Death can get a human being on Earth as easily as on Mars. And yes, space colonization does solve the human population problem, at least temporarily. I believe it to be of a much better design than some of the human population control schemes various parties are cooking up.

         

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    16. Re:Indentured Servants by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      The Longest Journey comes to mind.

      True, relying on a company to care for you is a...well...not so great idea.

    17. Re:Indentured Servants by Teancum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Slavery started in "the south" (and the "north" of the British colonies like New York and Massachusetts.... which both had slavery in 1776) in part because the indentured servant program was deemed as ineffective. Poor people from Ireland and London's south end would move to America, and by the time their seven to ten years of servitude were done they finally had the skills necessary to be effective.... but their term of service was up. Several of these "servants" would also simply disappear into the American wilderness and set up farms or homesteads of their own where law enforcement to make sure these indentured servants would finish their terms of service was largely ineffective.

      People of African descent stuck out as much more obvious and had a much harder time being able to disappear in a similar fashion. Yes, it was also utterly racist and some of the first people from Africa were also indentured servants, but the general process of indentured servitude wasn't really the problem. It was the more permanent status of general slavery and the fact that such a status could be inherited that caused the problems. I'll admit indentured servitude can lead to general slavery as well, but it doesn't have to be seen as something so ugly either. Strong limits simply need to be set on how it is implemented with a recognition that civil rights do apply to those "servants" as well.

    18. Re:Indentured Servants by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean like the US and Australia?... I am not an ozzie so I wonder about indentured servents.

      There may have been indentured servants in Oz, but the big issue was its use by the British as a penal colony.

      But this is how people came ot the new world and how slavery started in the south.

      No, indentured servitude is when free persons agree to a longish labor contract in exchange for something, e.g. passage to the New World.

      Slavery in the Americas started with the Spanish policy of repartimento, which was the use of natives for slave labor, rationalized as repayment for the favor of being saved from their pagan religion by their conquerors. But when they took people from the Mexican highlands and put them to work on the coastal plantations, they suffered greatly and died soon. So a certain Bishop Las Casas, somewhat enlightened for his time, but not by modern values, recommended bringing in African slaves, who would be more acclimated to that sort of work environment.

      According to Wikipedia, he later decided that that wasn't right either, and took a stand against it. (Wikipedia also says he wasn't the only one who advocated it in the first place. My knowledge of this comes from Prescott's monumental History of the Conquest of Mexico, which is long and sometimes tedious, but well worth the read if you're interested in the topic. But it's ~150 years old now, so I'm inclined to lean toward the Wikipedia version. See the article on Las Casas, and while there click the link to the article about the import of African slaves.)

      Britain and its colonies got in on slavery much later, becoming entangled with the Spanish in the slave trade. (The above was well before the British had the colonies that eventually became the USA and expended across "the south".)

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    19. Re:Indentured Servants by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But this is how people came ot the new world and how slavery started in the south.

      Actually, slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson (a black man) convinced a court that his servant (also a black man), John Casor, was his for life.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(American_Colonial)#Significance

      I imagine eventual space colonization will proceed roughly following the same pattern other colonizations to distant lands has proceeded here on Earth. That is, the first explorations will be done by government and privately funded explorers/expeditions, then a mix of government-related (military, cartographers, etc) and large commercial interests to start mapping and searching for and starting to exploit natural resources.

      Then, as the larger commercial interests reduce costs and make conditions safer, more and smaller business interests, ending with families and individuals, will make the journey to take advantage of the huge opportunities for wealth and freedom inherent to a new land or world.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re:Indentured Servants by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      You missed the point entirely. Do I have to explain everything?! He's obviously insinuating Total Recall.

    21. Re:Indentured Servants by zrbyte · · Score: 1

      (The Moon) Mars is a harsh mistress.

    22. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I just read someone defending servitude in 2012, but it's probably my fault.
      I get impressed too easily.

    23. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars, a prison for the modern age, just like Australia was in its time. This time around it can be for copy write infringements.

      Well, sure. But where will we send the repeat offenders who keep using the phrase "copy write?" There has to be somewhere truly awful for that. Maybe Newark, NJ.

    24. Re:Indentured Servants by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Importing African people was started by the Spanish as early as the 1560s, the Spanish colonies covered most of what is now the USA, Canada and Mexico ... they were legally Indentured servants, but were slaves in all but name ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    25. Re:Indentured Servants by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      I am no "Ozzie" either - I highly prefer Dio's work.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    26. Re:Indentured Servants by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Death can get a human being on Earth as easily as on Mars.

      This is simply untrue. On Earth, you can walk around in shirtsleeves at least part of the year for most of the inhabited landmass, shelter is relatively easily built, the air is breathable, fresh water is within walking distance, and there is idible biomass. There may be _shortages_ of all these due to overpopulation, but there's a starting place. The necessary investment for all these is stunning, and the loss of any one for even a short period is lethal. Until we master closed ecologies a lot more effectively or set up a real delivery system to Mars system for these staples, in very large amounts, colonization by more than a few explorers is out of the question. And given the shipping costs, unless we do something like colonize the rings of Saturn for easily shippable water and rocket fuel, there's no point. If you've colonized asteroids and especially ice asteroids, why _bother_ with a planetary surface?

      When the training and support for an individual colonist is so large, there is utterly no point in _wasting_ it on prisoners. There are plenty of volunteers, skilled and healthy and eager, to take up such posts.

    27. Re:Indentured Servants by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you (the global you, as well as the local) haven't read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, now is the time...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Indentured Servants by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The easiest way to solve the problem of people who don't pay their debts to private concerns is to make those debts the responsibility of the lender, which is pretty much what you'd have if you took the courts out of the equation and just left the credit reporting system. Forcing them to labor is simply an economic rationalization and system of selection for slavery as opposed to, say, a racial one.

      Indentured servitude is just another fancy word for "slavery" and nothing you say can change that.

      You have advocated slavery. You are scum.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now I'll be required to take a drug test just to fly to Mars?

    30. Re:Indentured Servants by Teancum · · Score: 2

      You have advocated slavery. You are scum.

      It is a matter of degree. If you have accepted an employment contract of any kind, it is in effect a form of slavery regardless of your view of the terms. The conditions and the ability to inherit the condition of employment is the big issue that distinguishes voluntary employment contracts with slavery as practiced "in the old south".

      I'll also point out that even after "slavery" was abolished after the U.S. Civil War, there still were employment contracts that were pretty close to slavery. The practice of "sharecropping" and "company towns" found in mining areas (as immortalized by Tennessee Ernie Ford in "Sixteen Tons") might have well have been indentured servitude in terms of how those employment contracts were worded. The only way to get out of the debts and those contracts were employment laws that permitted employees to simply quit their job and move on, as well as bankruptcy laws that permitted them to get out from under their debts that they simply couldn't pay back.

      Slavery is indeed one of the problems of capitalism, and I'll admit there needs to be civil right safeguards put into place to avoid the problems that result in slavery. the issue here is one of freedom of movement and the ability to tell a boss to "take this job and shove it".

    31. Re:Indentured Servants by docilespelunker · · Score: 1

      Fortunatly I've lived to early to sufer this fate. But I'm sure I'd end up stuck on the rock feeling grumpy about my boss with no escape. Though I expect life out there would start as 10 year stints then back to earth, all arranged by a company. Pay would be great and naturally no tax. Then the company would go bust and the air shipments would stop, causing governments to step in to save the problem at huge expense. You then find your pay was stock linked and die grim faced on the way back as the lowest rank emplyee finally cracks and goes postal.

    32. Re:Indentured Servants by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You have advocated slavery. You are scum.

      It's part of his religion -- he worships money. The conditions many illegal aliens work in here in the USA are a good example; it's in many cases defacto slavery. Nobody with any hint of empathy for their fellow humans would treat anyone like that. But their little green god demands it, and they obey. To them, when it concerns amassing wealth, the ends always justify the means.

      You are right, in my opinion. They are scum. However, in their opinion, we are fools.

    33. Re:Indentured Servants by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Death can get a human being on Earth as easily as on Mars. And yes, space colonization does solve the human population problem, at least temporarily. I believe it to be of a much better design than some of the human population control schemes various parties are cooking up.

      Not true. On Mars, it's just on the other side of a spacesuit or the bottom of an air tank. Don't take the atmosphere for granted.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    34. Re:Indentured Servants by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      time around it can be for copy write infringements.

      I vote we send people too stupid to know that it's "copyright" and not "copy write". Jesus, you would think a place like slashdot would have posters who were a little better educated than junior high level, people who actually read once in a while.

    35. Re:Indentured Servants by jafac · · Score: 1

      I am a descendant of a Norwegian immigrant who was so enslaved, in a copper-mining interest. From the very first day, his debt increased, day by day. It was mathematically impossible to get out, as set by the terms of the company, and the company-owned businesses that supplied food and shelter. What he didn't know, was at the time, these terms had been outlawed for several years, in the US. He learned that before being hustled onto the train by armed thugs. Luckily, he had smuggled a letter out, prior to arriving at the mine, to a relative who was already homesteading in Iowa. The relative came, and "bought" him. It was a very small amount, for a farmer. But for a miner, trapped in that town, an impossible sum. Unfortunately, they also lost their horse, and they (along with his wife, who was pregnant) were forced to walk over 800 miles back to Iowa. During this journey, the baby was lost, due to a harsh winter. (For this, they left Norway?) He ended up working on his relative's farm, and for the first season, paid his debt, and purchased his own farm. Five years later, the US Government came in and seized the mine, and freed the (illegally) indentured.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    36. Re:Indentured Servants by hodma727 · · Score: 1

      You mean you never unthinkingly type shit when thumping keys on slashdot? Now that you've had a good whine, how about you piss off and find a website for perfectionists.

    37. Re:Indentured Servants by jafac · · Score: 1

      There are some basic factual realities about the "let's colonize mars" discussion. 5 minutes of quiet contemplation, for most people, I would think, should just make sense. (for example, it would be FAR easier for us to colonize ANTARCTICA! it's a lot closer, and WAY more hospitable!)

      But I still love the speculation.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    38. Re:Indentured Servants by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You have advocated slavery. You are scum.

      It is a matter of degree.

      Well, that's true. You're not the same kind of scum as someone who actually keeps slaves, assuming you don't have any.

      First you create a situation in which people can be enslaved, then you create an artificial economic situation in which people will be enslaved, and then you are able to have slaves and also, apparently, sleep at night. That is, if you are able to talk yourself into believing that it is acceptable to subject people to slavery. And that is why indentured servitude is no different whatsoever than any other kind of slavery, and why you are no different from someone who promotes slavery on a racial basis.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Indentured Servants by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Everybody makes typos, but "copy write" is just ignorance, not a typo.

    40. Re:Indentured Servants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody makes typos, but "copy write" is just ignorance, not a typo.

      It was a typo numbnuts. Why don't you piss off and stalk someone else?

  4. BIG corporations only by Skapare · · Score: 4, Funny

    And, of course. the government and NASA will help make sure the big corporations will lock out small business and startups from even getting going.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:BIG corporations only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      By the time colonization of Mars will occur, we'll already have targeted ads on our ballots, a president who wears corporate badges on his suit and cap, and five year naming rights for our country sold to the highest bidder*. It'd be a little silly to allow small businesses to come along, innovate, and threaten our sponsor-leaders, wouldn't it?

      *At least there'll be a little amusing political humor if we end up being called the Citi States of America or similar.

    2. Re:BIG corporations only by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

      That's why they buy the laws, it keeps things profitable.
      We can't expect anyone ambitious to help out unless they can win and everyone else loses now, can we?

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    3. Re:BIG corporations only by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Launch near the equator, you won't suffer from this problem.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:BIG corporations only by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      And, of course. the government and NASA will help make sure the big corporations will lock out small business and startups from even getting going.

      And your tax dollars will subsidize their profits.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:BIG corporations only by Avoiderman · · Score: 1

      "...and five year naming rights for our country sold to the highest bidder..."

      Already started a UK fund to buy the name "Little Britain" for the US for five years. Just going next door to see if Liz & Phil are good for a few quid.

    6. Re:BIG corporations only by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      There already is a place called "Little Britain" - that's what "Brittany" in France means. You have Great Britain the island (Big Britain) - and "Little Britain aka Brittany" in France- that is where many of the original Briton's fled when the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes started conquering modern day England.

      Ironic- they fled to not be ruled by the English- and over generations they faced a fate worse by far... worse than death... they became part of France. ;)

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:BIG corporations only by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      a president who wears corporate badges on his suit and cap

      That would be an improvement, I've always agreed with the idea that politicians should be like race car drivers, and have to wear a uniform with their sponsors' names all over it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:BIG corporations only by FairAndHateful · · Score: 1

      Launch near the equator, you won't suffer from this problem.

      I'll refer to another article regarding the Maglev Train idea. In the original article, they're talking about about a 1600km ride at around 3 g's. Since this maglev idea (at least for payloads if not people) is most easily achieved by running it up a mountain, if you want to use the equator, there are 2 that are probably the best options. Mount Kilimanjaro and Chimarazo.

      Chimarazo is higher, and closer to the equator, but assuming you want to use the rotation of the earth to your advantage, it's only about 200km from the coast. I don't know what the rate of acceleration would have to be (is it too simple to assume that it would have to have 8 times the acceleration of the original plan?), but I'm pretty sure the acceleration would be too much for people. However, for payloads, having your start point close to the coast is a real advantage (think shipping).

      Mount Kilamanjaro is pretty good too, and it does have land for 1000 miles to the west, but there's a problem. Well, starting point, Tanzania. That's not so bad! Let's draw a straight line heading west... Oh... Well, looks like we end up in the Congo, but we have to go through either Rwanda or Burundi. That might be a problem... Yeah, we might need to find a more clever location for the people maglev train to space, or go for a non-equatorial location.

      I still think we need to get cheaper ways into space than what we have now... And honestly, the idea of using rockets to send people up in simplified lightweight capsules, and having them dock with service modules raw materials and equipment that we've fired up into space from a big magnetic cannon sounds like at least an improvement.

    9. Re:BIG corporations only by cobbaut · · Score: 1

      There already is a place called "Little Britain" - that's what "Brittany" in France means.
      It might mean that in English, but definitely not in France or in French!
      Bretagne, as the French call it, refers to the place where "Les Bretons" live. There is no 'little' or anything similar in that word.

      --
      European Linux user, living in Antwerp
    10. Re:BIG corporations only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is a place called "Little Britain" - that's what "Brittany" in France means.

      No the place was already called "Bretagne" over a thousand years before anyone talked about Great Britain.

  5. There goes the Solar System! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next, the Missionaries....

    1. Re:There goes the Solar System! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It would be a quiet source of entertainment (perhaps some irony?) to see another alien race converted by human preachers.

      There is also the not so mirthful possibility that they will be a first contact for another race, declare them to be demons, fire on them, and doom the rest of the human race (as this race seeks revenge by removing the human scum).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:There goes the Solar System! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It would be a quiet source of entertainment (perhaps some irony?) to see another alien race converted by human preachers.

      Maybe they're the "sheep from other folds" that Jesus is said to have made passing mention of.

      There is also the not so mirthful possibility that they will be a first contact for another race, declare them to be demons, fire on them, and doom the rest of the human race (as this race seeks revenge by removing the human scum).

      Or reduce us to slavery.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:There goes the Solar System! by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I think the first time we encounter bona fide evidence of alien life that is irrefutable (i.e. they land on earth in say, Trafalgar square), the world's monotheistic religions are going to pitch a complete fit and most of them will go into heavy denial. The polytheistic religious folks should be okay, since they tend to be more accepting and adaptable - if harder to define. Religions that insist there is only 1 God and we are his creations may have difficulty dealing with an alien species - not mentioned in any of their texts - and choose to see them as inherently evil collectively. Expect religious assassinations galore.
      Hopefully the rest of us will have become more rational and peaceful by this point of course, but I don't hold out my breath. I think the odds are greater that we will be living in a world dominated by mega-corporations operating on a more or less feudal like system in 100 years... :(

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  6. hunmn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...who has 'Intergalactic Federation King Almighty and Commander of the Universe' on her business cards."

    i am the king of the world (self-proclaimed).

    kiss my *

    1. Re:hunmn by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Entertaining, but owing to the maxim outlined in Good Omens -> the more impressive the title, the less power they have. ;-)

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  7. Two words .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weyland-Yutani.

    1. Re:Two words .. by pwizard2 · · Score: 2

      Nope, more like UAC.

      I really hope they don't start working on teleportation technology. If they do, they had better stock up on plasma rifles and miniguns first.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    2. Re:Two words .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, more like UAC.

      So, you're saying all the starships will run Windows Vista? No wonder space exploration isn't going anywhere.

    3. Re:Two words .. by bbecker23 · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Next year is the "Year of Linux on the Starship."
      Now if this damned driver would just compile.

      --
      cat /dev/random > sig.txt
    4. Re:Two words .. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Nope, more like UAC.
      I really hope they don't start working on teleportation technology. If they do, they had better stock up on plasma rifles and miniguns first.

      I'm Locked and Loaded, Sir!

    5. Re:Two words .. by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that no one got the Doom reference. (as far as I can tell)

      Then again, it is Friday.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
  8. Only if it turns out there's something valuable... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    .... on mars will there ever be any significant corporate interest in going there.

    From what we know so far, it's primarily just a gigantic rusted ball.

    If it turns out that there are more precious materials further below the surface than the tiny rovers that we have sent so far have scraped off, or, even better, albeit probably much more of a stretch, if there are compounds that have never been discovered here on earth and exist naturally there which have sufficiently desirable properties, it might very well end up being worth their while to start sending manned expeditions there regularly..

  9. scary land property... by altagir · · Score: 0

    to escape Earth dying athmosphere, enlist yourself for an endless life of slavery for the Mars Minig Corporation to pay for your oxygen and food.

    1. Re:scary land property... by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 1

      So much like Total Recall P. K. Dick really did have a direct line on the future.

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    2. Re:scary land property... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are only out temporarily, on our own recognizance, therefore we owe the man for our oxygen et cetera now.
      Bow down/bend over... nothing to see here...

    3. Re:scary land property... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe solve the problems of overpopulation on earth - send the billion Chinese to Mars, the 2 billion Muslims to Venus, and a billion Indians to say one of Jupiter's moons, and the world's population will be down to 3 billion, and that too a bulk of who are not reproducing @ replacement levels e.g. the Russians.

    4. Re:scary land property... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      *shrugs*

      Human beings are expensive to transport, not too expensive to grow. Wait, this isn't the Mars Mining Corporation shareholders meeting? *Waves hand* forget I said anything.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:scary land property... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Maybe solve the problems of overpopulation on earth - send the billion Chinese to Mars, the 2 billion Muslims to Venus, and a billion Indians to say one of Jupiter's moons, and the world's population will be down to 3 billion, and that too a bulk of who are not reproducing @ replacement levels e.g. the Russians.

      Pretty expensive operation there.

      Plus people are probably breeding faster than we'll ever be able to ship them off to colonies.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  10. Native Martians by zzzy · · Score: 0

    I wonder if we will end up calling Martians Indians too. Then centuries later the politically correct Martian Indians or Native Martians shall emerge. Hmm...

    1. Re:Native Martians by siddesu · · Score: 1

      No, we will call them "Old ones".

    2. Re:Native Martians by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Columbus sailed west in search of a shorter route to India, and since he thought he'd landed in India of course they named the natives "Indians". I have no idea why the name stuck after they discovered their mistake.

      And there are no native Martians; not yet. The first generation born there will be native Martians.

  11. Just What We Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *bingbong* "It looks like you're low on oxygen. Please insert another oxygen canister to continue.......... Oh I'm sorry, that doesn't seem to be a MarsCo(r) Brand Oxygen Experience Unit(tm). Aftermarket canisters such as yours are not supported. Suffocation in 5...4... this death is brought to you by..."

    1. Re:Just What We Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple :-P

    2. Re:Just What We Need by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      More like "*bingbong* It looks like you're low on oxygen. Please insert another coin to continue..."

    3. Re:Just What We Need by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Horrors of capitalism aside, for as long as oxygen / water / food is an issue on remote planets, various interested parties will have to deal with the local powers, which are always in need of a good distraction from the various schemes they are engaging in. As such, unless they want to face unprofitable sanctions, or face angry shareholders, they will do well to never run into those particular problems.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:Just What We Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vilos Cohaagen: Richter, you know why I'm such a happy person?
      Richter: No, sir.
      Vilos Cohaagen: ...because I have one of the greatest jobs in the solar system. As long as the turbinium keeps flowing, I can do anything I want. Anything... In fact, the only thing I worry about is, one day, if the rebels win, it all might end... AND YOU'RE FUCKING MAKING IT HAPPEN. First, you tried to kill Quaid and then you let him get away!
      Richter: He had help from our side, sir...
      Vilos Cohaagen: I know that!
      Richter: But, I thought--
      Vilos Cohaagen: Who told you to THINK? I don't give you enough information to THINK! You do as you're told, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO!

  12. Gots ta hand it to Google by javascriptjunkie · · Score: 1

    At least they give out cool job titles. I would work for Google if they let me have "Diabolical Overlord, Master of Men's Minds." Pretty much in a heartbeat.

    1. Re:Gots ta hand it to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I relish your flaccid frustration. Here, have some more hard liquor and a pre-recorded laugh-track.
      -un/clenching hands maniacally-
      Things go well. They go very, VERY well. Now tell where his sister is...

    2. Re:Gots ta hand it to Google by javascriptjunkie · · Score: 0

      I honestly don't think the code monkeys have a whole lot of power here. We're just the guys that sit around, and let people who aren't as intelligent as we are make all the stupid decisions. It's consent by omission, but it pays the bills.

    3. Re:Gots ta hand it to Google by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I'd go for 'the Buddha's Nipples.'

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    4. Re:Gots ta hand it to Google by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      I think near the top you'd tend to find people who are plenty smart as well, but just kinda, sociopaths? I don't mean my kind, the ranting one (or the "flaccidly frustrated" as the other poster called it :D), I mean the ones who steadily go about the business of power. I'm not sure their decisions are as much stupid, as simply adhering to other parameters of success than those by which we consider those decisions stupid.... wait, for what am I arguing even? I don't know. I for one bitterly resent our poopyhead overlords, who have very fat mothers, that much I know.

  13. I'm not investigating any distress calls by 99luftballon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Facehugger anyone? Seriously though, how many of us would sign up for a one-way trip? I'd do it in a heartbeat, but the wife would kill me.

    1. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the wife would kill me.

      Which is why 'Hey honey guess what I signed up for?' is the wrong way to break it and 'Hey honey guess where i just left for?' is the right way.

    2. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by 99luftballon · · Score: 1

      "My sweet, you know how you said you wanted to travel..."

      Seriously, my better half would find me in the darkest Arsia Mons caves, and there'd be bloody murder.

    3. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Wife: Honey, if you're in Mars, then what would be a good time to call you i.e. when will you be awake? The differences between Earth days & Mars days will be enough to throw me off! Also, where on Mars will you be?

    4. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Just don't let them put you down on the planet without one of those exo-skeletons.

      And no, I am not interested in a one-way trip. If it's one way, it's too slow (the method of travel, that is). I'm looking forward to the 'it's takes a week to get to Mars' kind of approach. Anything else is unprofitable, and perhaps unpleasant, given the current level of human technology.

      And Mars is cold. Now, Venus on the other hand...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more of "now let's see if the Ex can collect child support, muhahahahaha!"

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    6. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Facehugger anyone? Seriously though, how many of us would sign up for a one-way trip? I'd do it in a heartbeat, but the wife would kill me.

      If I was in charge of a space mission, the very last people I would want were those who weren't worried about coming back.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but the wife would kill me.

      Sounds like you have all the reason to go. She's probably concerned the alimony cheque will be hard to chase it your off planet. Run now, don't look back.

    8. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      So they will send an army of sci-fi nerds, who'll be making cinematic sound effects for every thing they (we) do, unil Earth cuts them (us) off, reducing the world's populus and the world's collective intelligence to just the right amount for survival. ??? PROFIT!

      Renember. In space, no one can hear you BEEP.

    9. Re:I'm not investigating any distress calls by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Almost certainly the first manned missions to mars will have to be one-way trips. It just makes more sense economically. They first pioneers may one day return to earth- but the provisions for such will not be guaranteed and there should be no expectation of such.

      I wouldn't want to take anyone who was not prepared to say goodbye to earth. (not that I would want to go... after it's been settled for 50 years maybe... but wouldn't want to be the first.)

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  14. And he is dead on by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fact is, that NASA can not afford to do prolonged bases. We have already seen the damage that CONgress can do to us over and over and over. Back in the mid 90's, the republicans destroyed NASA's ability to go BEO. Then they gutted them again in 2001. Likewise, they are doing everything possible to gut private space now, to push their SLS. Sadly, CONgress members like Hatch, Coffman, Wolfe, Shelby, Hutchinson, Nelson, etc. are fighting to destroy private space while continuing the funding of SLS until 2020, along with having Russia do our launches for another 10 years.

    What is needed is for Bolden/Obama to get funding for private space for the next 3 years. That should include enough to fund 3 human launchers along with getting bigelow aerospace going. Once this has happened for the next 3 years, then it will be impossible for those people to stop private space.

    What is so odd about this, is that America is within several years of turning space from a cost center into being not just taxable, but the next internet boom. Yet, certain members of CONgress wants NASA to be a jobs programs, rather than developed of America's space and aeronautics systems.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:And he is dead on by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What is so odd about this, is that America is within several years of turning space from a cost center

      This is nonsense. There's nothing in space we need on Earth.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:And he is dead on by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      We need off this rock. We need to put ppl around. We need to find out what is on the moon and mars. No where, did I suggest that space was about bringing things back. The ability to launch humans CHEAPLY, put up stations in orbit, put colonies on the moon or mars, will lead to other nations buying the services. And as prices drop, at some point, we WILL bring back various things.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:And he is dead on by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      This is nonsense. There's nothing in space we need on Earth.

      Except new frontiers. All we have to look forward to here is ever increasing numbers, ever more tyrannical governments, and the human equivalent of a rat overcrowding experiment.

    4. Re:And he is dead on by Hatta · · Score: 1

      We need off this rock.

      I agree. But that doesn't mean it's going to be profitable to get there.

      No where, did I suggest that space was about bringing things back.

      If you expect Earth people to pay space companies in Earth dollars, then you had better be proving some useful good or service to the Earth. What exactly do you propose?

      The ability to launch humans CHEAPLY, put up stations in orbit, put colonies on the moon or mars, will lead to other nations buying the services.

      Why do you assume it's cheaper for nations to pay a middleman than it is for them to send up astronauts themselves? The middle man is going to pocket some of the cost as profit. That's money you can't put back into your space programm.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  15. Venus colonization by oil magnates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next move - the OIC - led by the Saudis, the Gulf sheikhs, Iran and all the other oil rich sultans like Brunei - can arrange for colonization of Venus, and take all their 1.8 billion Muslims there. They won't have to worry about the evil Zionists, or other Western neo-colonialists trying to own them or their lands - they can have that entire planet all to themselves.

    1. Re:Venus colonization by oil magnates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...led by the Saudis, the Gulf sheikhs, Iran and all the other oil rich sultans like Brunei - can arrange for colonization of Venus..."
      The planet of females? You're kidding, right?

    2. Re:Venus colonization by oil magnates by lightknight · · Score: 1

      And you're the only male. I am not seeing the issue here.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  16. Unreal Tournament: Real Life? by Anubis350 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In 2291, in an attempt to control violence among deep space miners, the New Earth Government legalized no-holds-bared fighting. Liandri Mining Corporation, working with the NEG, established a series of leagues and bloody public exhibitions. The fights' popularity grew with their brutality. Soon, Liandri discovered that the public matches were their most profitable enterprise. The professional league was formed; a cabal of the most violent and skilled warriors in known space, selected to fight in a Grand Tournament. Now it is 2341. 50 years have passed since founding of DeathMatch. Profits from the Tournament number in the hundreds of billions. You have been selected to fight in the professional league by the Liandri Rules Board. Your strength and brutality are legendary. The time has come to prove you are the best. To crush your enemies; to win the Tournament." (video here)

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  17. Criminals are unlikely. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless there is a MAJOR breakthrough with getting mass into orbit.

    It is unlikely that a criminal will have any skills you'd need that would be worth the expense of lifting him into orbit and keeping him fed and watered and breathing.

    1. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make life depend on it - and it will give MAJOR boost in skills. And in space, it's not that difficult ;)

    2. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure that some corp will fly some drudge many months outo space to find out if he can stand the stress without resorting to violence.

    3. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because some people deserve only death for what they've done, and the justice system never makes any mistakes, right?

      Worse yet, the kind of people you hate aren't the kind of people the prisons are full of - true monsters are very rare, and keeping them locked up isn't a major expense. Unlike locking up potheads, who are a large part of the current prison population.

    4. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Most of the prisoners are repeat offenders anyways. Some being arrested over 20 times and still walking free. Our prison system is a joke at so many levels. The innocent that have their lives ruined and the criminals that pass in and out like a revolving door. It would seem that there is no justice in justice.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Teancum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only way that you would have a prison on the Moon is if the cost of spaceflight drops significantly. If the value of a liter of water on the Moon is literally more valuable than a refined and processed bar of pure gold, nobody is going to be going to the Moon much less a hardened criminal. The economics of doing that simply aren't available.

      I'll also note that it has been almost 30 years since somebody even went to the Moon, and it would take something substantial in terms of a major policy change to even see anybody go back to the Moon in the next 50 years, much less see a penal colony. I certainly wouldn't plan on anything like that happening, as 50 years is far too short of a time frame to even suggest such a notion.

    6. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Hah! There are so many people in western prisons that should been execute already it's not even funny. Mass murderers, rapists, child abusers...etc. But we're civilized. Or so I'm told. No, we'll just keep them locked up and well fed all at the expense of the tax payer.

      Unfortunately there are also a lot of people in western prisons who don't belong there at all, let alone deserve execution.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hah! There are so many people in western prisons that should been execute already it's not even funny. Mass murderers, rapists, child abusers...etc.

      Rapists is actually a good example of why you should not have the death penalty. When DNA testing came it turned out some people that had been decades in prison was innocent. Of course it'd be easier if they'd just been executed right? Nobody to complain about the miscarriage of justice. Not that long ago we had a deathbed confession 29 years after the murders another man was convicted for. Of course in some cases it's beyond any doubt, but then you'd have to add another standard of conviction in addition to beyond reasonable doubt which is a dangerous tail to pull.

      If they're nothing but a passive expense, that is also because we choose them to be. For example, I don't see why any of these people can't be software developers or translate foreign documents or any of a number of other jobs without ever leaving their cells or being a threat to anyone. But sure, if you say you're now in prison for life and your only task for the next 50 years is to stare at that wall you will get a vegetable. It is possible to give them a life that's meaningful both to them and to us, without them ever being in a position to hurt anyone ever again.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The criminals that pass in and out so quickly would barely fit the definition of criminal. Do you realize all the trivial things that have sentences up to 2 1/2 years? I'm guessing you don't. If anything our sentences tend to be too long. And states with the 3 strikes rule just encourage fights to the death at the third crime and lifers with trivial crimes under their belt.

      The fact is that many judges are hanging judges who like max sentencing and consider themselves to be the wrath of god. Many jurors and judges consider anyone accused to be guilty. Where there is smoke there is fire. The judges are friends with the cops and never doubt the truth of their testimony for an instant. Jurors often feel the seem. Police testimony is granted far more weight than civilian testimony. People who are intelligent and can think critically and logically and be truly objective tend to avoid jury duty. It is for reasons like this that we have such a high percentage of innocent people behind bars.

      Do you have any statistics to back up your 'being arrested 20 times' idea? You seem to think our justice system is too lenient. It's true that we don't simply shoot or dismember petty thieves, but most other countries don't either. With a few rare exceptions we have the harshest justice system on the planet, which is reflected by the largest prison population on the planet both as a percentage and as a total number. Even exceeding China.

      The fact is that 'real' criminals are not all that dissuaded by prison. It doesn't motivate them to change their behavior. For many reasons. Partly because they lack intelligence. Partly because they simply cannot stand the idea of being a wage slave. The lures of whatever crime they are attracted to is just too great. Putting them in prison just stops them from engaging in their preferred behavior for as long as they are there.

      It is people like you who believe sentencing is still too short that are the reason why such a high percentage of our population is living in subhuman conditions behind bars. And you want to make the sentencing longer. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Republicans and other enthusiastic punishers supported the death penalty for even minor crimes. That is not a civilized or just society.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    9. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Gotta make space for the dangerous criminals who do things like smoke an unapproved plant in their own home.

    10. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until there, smoking anything will be a felon.
      Or even a crime.We must protect our children!

    11. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is unlikely that a criminal will have any skills you'd need that would be worth the expense of lifting him into orbit and keeping him fed and watered and breathing.

      Constantly increasing number of long-sentence prisoners are skilled self-educated hydroponics technicians, chemistry lab techs, or programmers.

    12. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2

      Unless there is a MAJOR breakthrough with getting mass into orbit

      Doesn't have to be fat criminals though.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    13. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Note that the Prison population in the USA work in making goods very cheaply for the US market,

      Any idea how much paint is imported into the USA....well 93% of paints sold in the USA are made in prison...

      Abolition of slavery in the USA ... that would be an idea ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    14. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I believe if you work whilst in prison you are paid for it. Probably not much, and probably not very useful whilst behind bars.

      Nonetheless- to compare prison with slavery is far off. Slaves typically did nothing wrong to become what they were- and the goal to owning slaves was that it would enrich the owners.

      Prison is a huge drain on the economy. Your paint does little to pay for it. Also- (assuming no wrongfull arrest) to go to prison you have to actively decide to break the laws of the nation...

      Slavery: Greed from the individual owner. Enriches lives or provides extra money for owner.

      Prison: Protection for the citizens. Drains money from the nation.

      Very different.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Any idea how much paint is imported into the USA....well 93% of paints sold in the USA are made in prison...

      [citation needed] ... because I will share and reshare it. Can't find anything on a quick search.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      True monsters are very common. Congress is packed with them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      A great many of our inmates have done nothing wrong either. Or they've done a few petty things that in no way justify being locked in a cage for years on end. If you actually look at the way our prisons are run, they are not about protection at all. They are about enriching the owners of private prisons, creating employment for prison guards, and keeping sheriffs/judges/politicians in office by putting up a front of being "tough on crime".

      If you actually care, read The New Jim Crow. You'll be surprised at just how unjust our justice system is.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      While I know that some work programs do exist in American prisons, I would like to know where your sources are for such bold statements you have made in this post... particularly the "93% of paints sold in the USA are made in prison."

      For the most part, many companies start to complain to state governments when prisons make a competing product (not to mention labor unions as well) and it usually becomes politically difficult to keep those products from continuing to be produced in a prison for that reason alone. About the only thing consistently made in prisons is license plates for automobiles, in part because making those is something that is already a government monopoly and doesn't require too much capital expense either. That also doesn't even start to deal with things like interruption of the product due to things like a prison lock-down or other issues that come up from simply having the work done in a prison (again... something that license plate production doesn't really matter as most DMV offices have several months or years worth of license plates available for distribution and a temporary interruption of supply doesn't hurt).

      Seriously... I'd love to know your sources of information. Until then, I don't believe your figures or claims unless you are pointing out prisons which exist outside of the USA. The tone of your post is implying that these products are made in American prisons, but then you make a statement that could be interpreted as implying foreign governments are doing that instead on behalf of American consumers. At least be consistent in who you are condemning. That some prisoners in other countries are using what is essentially slave labor for making cheap products may be worth condemning, it isn't something coming from American prisons or from the "war on drugs" that is making a huge prison population in America.

    19. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because some people deserve only death for what they've done

      You know, I can't understand the "death penalty" thing at all. Death is no penalty -- we are all under a death sentence, every one of us. But when you or I die, it is very unlikely that you're going to die peacefully in your sleep. You're going to have cancer, or a heart attack, or pneumonia, or alzheimer's, or fall down in the nursing home and break your hip after suffering from arthritis for decades.

      Timothy McVeigh, however, who killed hundreds of people, many of them children, knew exactly when he was going to die and how he was going to die, and had a chance to repent his evil deeds and make peace with his maker (McVeigh was a Catholic). Then he was painlessly put to sleep like a beloved pet with an incurable disease.

      I say fuck the bleeding heart conservatives. Someone commits an atrocity, keep them locked in a cage, until they die as horribly and unexpectedly as I surely will. I consider that a good expenditure of my tax dollars.

      As well as what you said; Illinois abolished the death penalty when DNA proved that half of death row were innocent. Over half of all prisoners in the US are nonviolent and were incarcerated for drugs, half of those for marijuana. Now THAT is a serious waste of tax money.

      Here's a single example of a terrible waste inolving an old friend's brother.

      There was a dope dealer in Cahokia, IL who deserved prison; he was also a theif, and violent. He sold every drug there was, including steroids and heroin. After 20 years dealing dope he finally got caught. Of course, the feds offered him a deal.

      So Mike's brother, who didn't even smoke pot, let alone sell drugs, gets a call from Radford (the dope dealer). Radford needed money to make a purchase and if Mike's brother would loan him a thousand bucks he'd get two thousand back in a week. Loan a guy a thousand bucks at 100% weekly interest? Of course he did. he had the money, he made a good living as a truck mechanic.

      And of course it was a setup, and the DEA's tape recorders were rolling. Mike's brother, who had never had any connection with the drug trade in his life whatever, not even as a customer. spent five years in federal prison for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. As did half of his high school graduation class, most of whom were likewise innocent before the setup.

      Radford, who'd been the town's biggest dope dealer for two decades, spent two years in prison.

      Mike's brother's wife divorced him when he was in prison and married another man. He's now unemployable and a hard core alcoholic and yes, now is a doper himself.

      Anybody who doesn't think the justice system is severely dysfunctional in the US is either ignorant or delusional.

    20. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on if they continue to chip away at what's legal. You used to be able to get model rockets (and engines) plenty of places around town. No forms to fill out, no questions to answer. Gunpowder, and even dynamite, in some parts of the country. Now you can't carry a set of nail clippers onto an airplane...

    21. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      true monsters are very rare

      I dunno dude, I did a local child molester search online and saw quite a few monsters just around the corner. I figured, naaah... couldn't be THAT many so I checked each name and it took about 20 documented child rapists with detailed descriptions of their acts before I found a single sex crime against an adult.

      So no, I would say that monsters aren't that rare at all and they run free in the general population every day.

      When I was a kid once my dad was late to pick me up at school. A monster almost got me with a promise of baseball game tickets.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    22. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I dunno dude, I did a local child molester search online and saw quite a few monsters just around the corner. I figured, naaah... couldn't be THAT many so I checked each name and it took about 20 documented child rapists with detailed descriptions of their acts before I found a single sex crime against an adult.

      Have you considered that, perhaps, you just live into one of those few areas where those people are legally allowed to settle, and so there is an abnormally high concentration right near you?

    23. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But if smoking is a crime, only criminals will smoke felons.

    24. Re:Criminals are unlikely. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      First article on Google ...

      "http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289"

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  18. Re:Only if it turns out there's something valuable by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Nope. Nations will back this just to be part of it. My guess is that the first team will include about 6 ppl on a one-way mission with 3 to 6 nations being represented.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. Nasa ain't doing shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until the banksters and their enablers are cleaned up.

    Who the fuck want's to live on Mars? Send the banksters there.

    1. Re:Nasa ain't doing shit by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Send the banksters there.

      Excuse me... that's quite an expensive way to lose a load of night soil. Think again, please.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  20. Space Mining by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    But I'd bet the Chinese are considering mining operations off planet

    I find the above quote a little bit too ironic

    The first one who talk about space mining wasn't the Chinese, it was the Americans

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Space Mining by 99luftballon · · Score: 2

      Sure, but in 20 years who is going to have more funds to throw at space travel - the US or China?

    2. Re:Space Mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure? French had "He wants to grab Moon in his teeth" proverb when your USA did not exist at all.

    3. Re:Space Mining by c0lo · · Score: 4, Funny

      But I'd bet the Chinese are considering mining operations off planet

      I find the above quote a little bit too ironic

      Speaking of mining and ores, I find yours a bit... (how to put it?)... pun-ic?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Space Mining by gatkinso · · Score: 3, Funny

      Probably the US, even extrapolating current economic trends.

      However when you throw in the impending collapse of the Chinese real estate bubble....

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    5. Re:Space Mining by elgeeko.com · · Score: 1

      The US, we print money faster than anyone!

    6. Re:Space Mining by MrHops · · Score: 1

      But I'd bet the Chinese are considering mining operations off planet

      I find the above quote a little bit too ironic

      Speaking of mining and ores, I find yours a bit... (how to put it?)... pun-ic?

      And 'ores' rhymes with 'wars'. Nice.

    7. Re:Space Mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >pun-ic?
      Are you trying to start a war, here? (CAPTCHA is: psychic. I must be.)

    8. Re:Space Mining by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      In the 1980's we all thought the Japanese were going to end up buying the world. Look how that turned out.
      Looks like China might be on the same path.
      I shudder to imagine a lost decade with a billion men who can't find wives. Starts to make Blizzard look like a crucial company for national (nay, global) security.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    9. Re:Space Mining by shiftless · · Score: 2

      What about the pending collapse of the U.S. dollar, do you think that would have any effect on anything?

    10. Re:Space Mining by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They sort of did. The problem was their government infrastructure projects got increasingly more ludicrous and the debt went up until the economy stagnated. They wanted to avoid inflation so much they got into the land of 0% interest rates. Still the Japanese bought many real estate, media corporations and other things in the 80s. China has so far bought IBM's PC division, tried to purchase a substantial chunk of GM (not authorized by the US Government), purchased several mines, etc. They keep buying more and more stuff. As for the "excess population" you can always start a war with Taiwan, or something.

  21. Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this law by InnerInsight · · Score: 2

    Before any corporation would attempt Mars, the logical stepping stone is the Moon. Any products returned to earth derived from the moon would fall under this law. Helium 3 would fall under this. Moon Bases would complicate ownership. Who is going to verify land ownership for these Corporations if we cant even own a simple Moon Rock?

  22. For the rest, see the "Mars" trilogy by Robinson by MacroRodent · · Score: 2

    The "Red Mars", "Green Mars", "Blue Mars" trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson is a great future history that lays out a credible way the Mars colonisation could play out, including the inevitable revolt against the megacorporations. Enjoyed it last summer. The books were written in the early 1990's, evidenly with the best knowledge about Mars available then. At times it feels like the author had visited the place in person... There is no technobable, no miracle technology, this is hard sci-fi at its hardest. But much of the story is really about social effects, the tensions between early Mars settlers, newcomers, people who want to terraform Mars and those that desire to preserve it, and the corporations that just want to extract maximum profits from Mars. Earth future history is also explored with the unexpected discovery of a life-prolonging treatment (who gets it?), and an environmental crisis caused by volcanism in the Antarctic (a huge flood, but not fashionably by global warming).

  23. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia we only own the top foot of the land we're on so we're used to non ownership.

  24. Private vs. Public by hierophanta · · Score: 0

    The shift form pubic to private is
    1. the difference between China and the west
    2. A real shift in the west that is being driven by recession (& this makes me sad :(
    3, ???
    4. Profit!

    1. Re:Private vs. Public by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The shift form pubic to private is

      Never other than private my form pubic was, my young padwan, shift it back not needed is.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Private vs. Public by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The shift form pubic to private is

      A scam to put public money in private pockets, as always.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  25. Re:Venus colonization by Muslim oil magnates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, they'll get all their 72 or whatever virgins that they fantasize over, and can enjoy a completely Islamic paradise. Who's to begrudge them any of that? ;-)

  26. Nice Try by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    Neither NASA nor any other Earth space agency has the right to determine who can/can't travel to Mars. On my space airline, corporate passengers will be prohibited.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:Nice Try by tragedy · · Score: 2

      But... won't your space airline _be_ a corporation?

    2. Re:Nice Try by siddesu · · Score: 1

      And, more importantly, will it actually fly to Mars at all?

    3. Re:Nice Try by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      space airline _be_ a corporation? ...maybe it's a word game, and it's actually a partnership, or some other such thing.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    4. Re:Nice Try by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      "On my space airline, corporate passengers will be prohibited."
      two questions:
      Why?
      How will you stop them? You'll prohibit anyone flying who has a job? How do you stop someone booking themselves then claiming off expenses?

      Also this may go without saying but "space airline" is a misnomer. Chances are you will use one mode of transport to LEO, one to MEO or HEO or some other transfer orbit. Then another craft from the transfer orbit to mars orbit, then another to LMO, then another to the surface of mars. The idea that one company would do all these things implies either a lack of competition or one huge corporation running a monopoly - the very thing you seem to be against.
      This is going off topic but this is assuming you're colonising Mars at all, I'm personally convinced that once we have the technology/economy/infrastructure to get large number of people into orbit then the last thing we'll want to do is head right back down a gravity well again. Kind of like breaking your back building a house only to burn it to the ground after you've slept in it for one night.
      Once you have the technology to survive in space for the multi month long journey then you have the technology to live there. Once you can do that, why go down to a planet at all except possibly to mine it? Even then, the asteroids and moons are probably a better source of raw material. Certainly for the first few generations of space fairers anyway...

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    5. Re:Nice Try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MacGyver2210 space airlines, they get you to Mars in under 20 hours, regardless of time of year. Please ignore how much the native wildlife resembles kangaroos.

  27. Lemme guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UAC?

    Please don't let them try to create tele-portation... just, no.

    1. Re:Lemme guess... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong? Ok, they might discover that the ancient Martians developed genetic engineering that turns evil people (such as professional wrestlers turned actor) into monsters but... Wait, that sounds wrong somehow.

  28. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

    Laws can be changed? Doesn't seem that complicated a concept. If they have value beyond novelty as moon rocks then they'll have to allow them to be owned.

    Right now moon rocks are valuable because going to the moon is novel, rocks are rare, and they have intrinsic value because they are rare (and worth studying), and even have value as display items because they are from the moon, even if they are, in all other ways, identical to, or more boring than earth rocks. That necessarily requires rules to deal with scams, and ideas of ownership that might normally apply to rocks from other places.

    All that changes very quickly if they have a commercial value to be mined or the like. They could go a number of ways with it, who mines it owns it, some organization or government could own it and you buy a licence etc. etc. etc. Right now there is a state monopoly on moon rocks. But there's no reason it will have to stay that way if circumstances change.

  29. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a US problem and right now it looks like China or India could be there first anyway.

    So "Not a problem"

  30. It will be a bonanza... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... for charismatic leaders and their religious communities.

    1. Re:It will be a bonanza... by lightknight · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not so much. Religion tends to eschew science as an often necessary evil, with the heaviest promotions in a religious organization going to the least scientifically curious (sadly, the religions which tend to prosper the most are those who take a hands-off approach to scientists...but we all know that sooner or later, some dogmatist will make a power play against a resident scientist, refuse to acknowledge his own lack of understanding, get the resident authorities to side with him and piss off the entire community). As such, space, being a hard vacuum, can be incredibly unmerciful when a hull breach happens, or the oxygen generation breaks down (and no spare parts can be had).

      Only human beings care about charisma. The universe does not, or the noted efficacy of prayer would be much greater than that of hard thought / labor. The human being is adapted to Earth, and only Earth (time spent on other planets might change this). Moving elsewhere in the universe requires, at this time, some uncommon knowledge. What does this mean? The typical tyrannies of religion will, in all likelihood, annihilate entire sects of people who prefer the words of their priest over the guidance of their scientists ("Uh, we need that piece of red wire you're using for tinsel around your makeshift altar" "Sinners!" "Plus, you probably shouldn't be lighting a fire in space, in a pure oxygen / zero gravity environment..." "Heathens! Be gone!"), especially when dealing with matters in the material realm. Communicable diseases (hello Syphilis / the flu) that the priests will say can be cured with prayer will run rampant and destroy entire colony ships before they make it halfway to their destinations, while the doctors on hand are shouted down for not placing enough faith in God's hands.

      You'll notice that in the US, it's a practical requirement for all astronauts (save the educator / teacher in space types) to have a STEM degree. If you're going to be on a star-ship, for the next few hundred years or so, they're going to ensure you're not dead weight (if something breaks, they want people who can fix it from scratch). Not much demand for people in funny clothes, carrying around brass plates, and reading from a book. You may want to play the part of Kirk, but if you can't speak the language of McCoy, Spock, or Scotty, you don't get to be Kirk.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  31. Hmm... by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the first man on Mars will drink... Coke, Pepsi, or recycled & filtered urine?

    1. Re:Hmm... by lightknight · · Score: 2

      Vodka. When we send a ship there, it'll probably be with the help of the Russian government, and their people are notorious for hiding bottles of spirits in the frames of their ships / space stations.

      Drunk, in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccceeeeeeeeeeee!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Hmm... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Anybody recalls Tintin comics, where in 'Explorers on the moon', Capt Haddock's whiskey turns into a ball when the rocket's gravitational field is turned off? Don't be surprised if something like that happens here - the vodka in someone's glass actually becoming a spherical liquid and floating. Getting hold of it in one's mouth will be a fun exercise!

    3. Re:Hmm... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I believe the Chinese are fond of green tea.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Hmm... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      With vodka, you might as well just skip the whole mouth business, and go intravenous for no mess and stronger effect.

  32. Fire him by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Exactly what NASA doesn't need. Yes, start offering LEO to corporate entities. There is not enough guarantee or immediate return for Mars, asteroids, etc.

    However, private companies are involved whenever NASA does do things, because Private companies generally build the stuff NASA specifies.

    It doesn't seem like he gets that. It took government money for the Christopher Columbus mission; which was needed to lay the path..as it were.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "...the logical stepping stone is the Moon."

    why? I can think of a lot of research that can be done on the moon, but it doesn't have to be a step.

    When Columbus stumbled upon the Americas, the Spain owned every rock and item. That falls to the side with colonization

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. What's up with the summary? by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The summary somewhat misrepresents what Worden said. From the article, here's Worden's actual statement, which seems quite sensible to me: "Governments can develop new technology and do some of the exciting early exploration but in the long run it's the private sector that finds ways to make profit, finds ways to expand humanity. ... Most of private individuals I've talked to about interest in settling on Mars, including Elon Musk, talk about in the next few decades they think the private sector will fund settlement missions - whether to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids. As a government laboratory our job is to develop to enable those kinds of things by developing technology and early exploration, and we hope the private sector will find a way to do something like that."

    1. Re:What's up with the summary? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      All except that a first attempt at settling another planet sounds exactly like the kind of "early exploration" NASA should be doing. "Most of private individuals I've talked to about interest in settling on Mars" will speculate in the possibility of a privately funded mission since it seems a publicly funded one probably won't happen. They're no longer plowing the way, they're developing plows and surveying the area to be plowed but that's not nearly the same thing. I can understand private money investing in SpaceX because you have satellite launches and such that can pay the bills. There's absolutely no business case for a Mars settlement, maybe if we have an Apollo-style program now we can find a profit incentive in 50 years but for now it looks like exactly the kind of mission NASA should be doing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  35. In my dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hereby claim this Planet Hollywood!"

  36. Expect a quick change of mind by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Expect a quick change of mind after the first Chinese lunar colony is established.

    1. Re:Expect a quick change of mind by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Expect a quick change of mind after the first Chinese lunar colony is established.

      Or as soon as we realize that they're actively working toward one.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  37. Funny by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    I still remember several good novels on that topic (privately funded Mars missions).

  38. Well... by greentshirt · · Score: 0

    I for one think this is a great idea. I mean, what could possible go wrong? Sure, corporations will be given access to an entire planet, but corporations are people too my friend. For example, don't think Ford, think Fred. GM? No, that's Jim. Sure, these people will work within the free market towards their own selfish gains, however, through the benevolent guidance of the Invisible Hand (which is an alpha version of the Invisible Man) they will reach a state of equilibrium which represents the best interests of all.

  39. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by lightknight · · Score: 1

    By, I don't know, not being an American citizen?

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  40. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by lightknight · · Score: 1

    True. While colonizing the moon may be a good idea, you're still dealing with gravity. Reduced gravity, but still gravity.

    A Lagrange point would, instead, be a better idea.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  41. I need to set up "Blue Sun Corporation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I know that my business will succeed!

  42. something weird going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nobody saw the "her card" and KING thing? really? what's up on google now?

    1. Re:something weird going on by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I wondered what "her" was "king" and decided- she can call herself whatever she likes... it's not sillier than the rest of her title anyway.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  43. Re:Only if it turns out there's something valuable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A one way mission? That seems a bit harsh.
    I doubt we will send any people to Mars without a return strategy.

  44. Re:Only if it turns out there's something valuable by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    .... on mars will there ever be any significant corporate interest in going there.

    Some may decide it's a good place to conduct operations free of legal constraints.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  45. Intergalactic Federation King Almighty and Command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take Tiffany Montague, who has the most interesting business card in Silicon Valley. Ms Montague, a former US Air Force high-altitude pilot, has the official job title of Intergalactic Federation King Almighty and Commander of the Universe and is in charge of coordinating Google's operation of all things orbital and beyond

    I think I just puked into my mouth a little...

  46. With state subsidies all the way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the American Way of free enterprise.

  47. Re:Intergalactic Federation King Almighty and Comm by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Yes, the 'tard is strong in that one.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  48. How to make a profit beyond the well? by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    How do we inspire corporations to build things or invest on other worlds? How do they make a profit? If they can't then all their focus will be on getting things into low earth orbit.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  49. Google Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Google Mars there are cameras in every room!

  50. It's not profitable, so they won't by Hentes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Corporations only care about projects that have a good chance of profits in 5-10 years, which is why private spacecraft are only in LEO. Space exploration is something that might be very important 100 years later, but today it's mostly an expensive scientific project. Which is why corporations aren't interested in it, and why it has to be pioneered by governments. What this statement really means is that NASA has no intentions in a manned Mars mission.

  51. Re:Americans Cannot Own Moonrocks - Remove this la by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    it's rather simple, you incorporate in cayman islands.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  52. Shows how far NASA has fallen by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    A fish rots from the head and that is particularly true at NASA. NASA used to be an amazing organization driven by engineering, now it's a top-heavy, risk-adverse bunch of middle managers spouting complete nonsense and handing out grandiose gag business cards. It's a mish-mash of gutless leadership and money-sucking contractors.

    Colonization of Mars will never be profitable, no company is going to make that kind of investment. How far would we have gotten waiting on corporate sponsorship for the moon landings?

    We need a new NASA with engineering leadership.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Shows how far NASA has fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? We were going to the moon to beat the Soviets! What corporations wouldn't have wanted to jump on that money bandwagon?

      The problem right now is that there is no significant demand.

    2. Re:Shows how far NASA has fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A fish rots from the head"

      A fish starves when it is not fed.
      Did you ever vote for a politician who supported cutting NASA's budget?

      "We need a new NASA with engineering leadership."

      We need politicians with the political will to invest in science.

  53. Mosques on Mars by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Middle East money, Iranian, Pakistani and Malaysian technology: the Muslim Ummah taken as a whole is perfectly capable of an ideological colonisation.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Mosques on Mars by damburger · · Score: 1

      Not that unreasonable a prediction. Iran has really stepped on the gas with regards to science+technology (their current president - yes the 'crazy' one - is himself an engineer I believe.) They have done a couple of orbital launches - confirmed by other nations, not lied about them like DPRK did - and have stated they wish to put men into orbit.

      One sunny prospect worth considering though; the Islamic world has an unfortunate habit of producing, in a very small minority of its population, suicide bombers. Imagine what damage could be done by such a person in control of a spacecraft moving at ~10km/s...

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  54. Corporates: unlikely. Religions: possible by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    I doubt that any companies would be too interested in Mars. It appears to be a desolate hole and it's too far from every company's major markets.

    However religious types don't seem to mind traveling long distances, suffering high death-rates and they may even be able to raise the money from their followers. The only problem then is that religious wars tend to be the most vicious and long-lasting of all types of war - so giving them a whole planet to fight over may not be the best idea.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  55. Well, I look forward to the day when... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ...quaint little nation states on Earth-that-was are less well known than the various city-states of Ancient Greece.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  56. Shutdown NASA if they can't do the big projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If NASA can't do the big projects, they need to be shutdown.
    If there isn't any political will to do the costly and hard-to-do things, NASA becomes next to worthless. The day-to-day science that NASA does will easily be picked up by commercial interests.

    I say this as a former NASA employee. Even at the time, I considered my job in manned space flight as government welfare for scientists and about 30,000 contractors.

    Some things cannot be nickel and dimed. Either you do it or your don't. There is no try. Going to Mars is something that we need a President to get behind, then get killed over, or it won't happen. There needs to be an emotional hook across America to force Congress and the Senate to fund it properly. Cooperation isn't the same driver as cold war competition was.

    Too bad all the actors who are excited about NASA aren't good politicians too. Billy Bob just doesn't convince anyone that funding NASA to Mars efforts is a great idea for humanity. There will always be astronauts willing to try to go and take huge risks as long as there is a chance of living, but politicians don't have the will to let them try.

  57. Re:For the rest, see the "Mars" trilogy by Robinso by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

    "no miracle technology"
    Apart from all the nano-tech
    And the biotech that did the colonisation for them
    or the space elevator
    Or the fact that the temperature warmed faster (it is brought up to earth temperatures in less than 100 years) faster than the energy input from the sun would allow
    Or my personal favourite, using windmills to power electric heaters to warm the planet.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the books, but no some things were IMO unrealistically optimistic and some like the windmills were just plain wrong.

    --
    "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  58. Bankrupcy inevitable. by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Any company that causes or supports the colonization of the Moon or Mars is going to bankrupt itself. The immorality of causing or supporting the birth of a human being on Mars or the Moon is so obvious that lawsuits are inevitable It is impossible to imagine that the results would be less than enormous sums for each and every human being who is robbed of 4 billion years of genetic legacy - the natural right to be born and live on the Earth. If I were a lawyer, I would love to have such cases.

    And if you are thinking that laws can be passed stripping legal rights from people forced to be born on the Moon or Mars, well, if our country does something like that it puts the lie to everything it professes to stand for. It may as well reinstitute slavery.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Bankrupcy inevitable. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I know... It's like the pioneers who moved to the Americas and had children there. How could they? How could they rob those children of all their heritage.

      Their offspring would never have a chance to have happy lives- wealthy lives. I'm darn sure none of them would ever have an iPhone centuries later- or a computer on which to communicate with the world on a medium such as slash dot.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Bankrupcy inevitable. by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      It does not compare. And that is the problem. People are using Earth-related comparisons, concepts and terminology that simply does not apply off planet. Did your Earth surface immigrants have to fight to have daily oxygen? Did they not have a superabundance of water if they wanted to go to it? Did they not have natural Earth temperatures? Were they not naturally protected from cosmic rays by the Earth's magnetosphere? Did they not have the amount of gravity the human body expects? On and on. Try to wrench your mind away from the comparison to Earth and see that space is not Earth and the perceptions and terminology of Earth do not apply to the Moon or Mars. Real life is not science fiction. There are no "colonies" possible in space. There is just suffering for human beings. And you have no right to call for it.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
    3. Re:Bankrupcy inevitable. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Without the technology of the day- they would have died. Without knowing how to farm in the new worldy- what they could and could not eat- they would have starved.

      Same holds true for Mars. Without technology the early settlers would die. Without knowing how to get the raw ingredients for life they will die. There was probalby a lower life-span and higher mortality for the earlier settlers of the Americas- this also will be true for Mars.

      Over a couple generations- the knowledge to thrive will build. Same as the Americas. Mankind is the alpha-species on earth because they can adapt, will adapt, and do adapt.

      You could say- well if technology collapsed they would all die.

      Yes, they would.

      If technology collapsed on earth- you know what- almost everyone here would die over a few years too.

      That's life.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  59. The US is now a foot-note in history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to the short-sighted spend-thrift nature of the sitting President, the US is rocketing down the tubes and accelerating, while they are actively dismantling the braking system.

    Once upon a time the US stood for greatness and was a beacon to what the human spirit could achieve - now it is a testament to what one short sighted idiot can do to destroy a once world-power.

  60. space mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the profits in mining space are in the asteroids, bring back to neo and offload. All sorts of heavy metals, that could be exploited, and refuse reaimed to the sun.

  61. More "free market" brainwashing by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    If the government does it, it has to be wrong. If a private company does it, it has to be right. Even if that means paying a private company 2x as much to do a job the government has been more than capable of for 50 years.

    There's no profit motive for scientific research and that's exactly what the first Mars missions will be since, until the tech is well established, there won't be a profitable way to get to Mars. The only way private industry goes first is if the US government (I don't think China, Russia, or the ESA is that stupid) overpays Boeing to do it for them while losing all the new tech patents in the same process so that they'd have a monopoly on the routes.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  62. I'm Thinking "Total Recall" by rocker_wannabe · · Score: 1

    After watching the movie, Total Recall, I realized that Mars is the perfect place for a corporation to setup. You have complete control over your employees including the oxygen they breath. Any problem with an employee can be resolved with an airlock malfunction. It's a sociopathic CEO's dream come true.

    --
    "Meaningless!, Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless!"
  63. Well, why not just tell China... by forkfail · · Score: 1

    .. it's all theirs now?

    --
    Check your premises.
  64. East Indian Company = Mercantilism not Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html

  65. Brilliant idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think this is an absolutely brilliant political move. There is no money to be made by going to Mars. It's all motivated by science fiction, which in turn is inspired by myths of conquest deep within the Western psyche. On the other hand, NASA has been given a mandate to go back to moon, and from there to Mars, by Bush in 2004. What to do? What to do? How can we do the impossible and not get blamed for failing?

    Let's get private interests do it! That way when nobody comes forward (because there's no money to be made), we won't get blamed. Moreover, we can claim that we are saving taxpayer dollars!

  66. Corporate Bosses say Mars exploitation .... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Our masters say Mars exploitation by robotics will eliminate costly colonization, until it is safe for them to rule US, EU, CN, RU ... fools.

    Slavery will be eliminated, by fiat, long live our ruling class and robotics. Fuck the masses; slaughter them, if they won't die from famine.

    It is not a distopia when there are only wealthy bosses with robots providing sustainment, no need for robot income taxes or medical and social problems.

    Mars will be our first human utopia. Earth will be our second human utopia, after extinction of the non-worker-mass extinction (who needs them with robotics) and improved global environmental conservation.

    Humanity has a very bright future, an extremely dark heritage, and survival skills for aristocrats and plutocrats. Where is our next hitler, god, king ....

    The survival of the qualified privileged few out-weighs the needs of the untermenchen many.

    Plutokraten, Plutokraten über alles ... you know the tune, just sing along for US, EU, RU, CN ....

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    1. Re:Corporate Bosses say Mars exploitation .... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      You sound like the crazy Anonymous poster I love to hear from so much, a quick review of your post history seems to support this. I love the stream-of-thought presentation in your writings, the sprinklings of "::", "/", extraneous comma delimited descriptors, and mash-up lingo provide a window into into your special world view where hyper-paranoia has overwhelmed the senses such that it all comes spilling across the page in a frenzy of rage against the machine. It's like high-pressure crazy has concentrated all those disparate fears of the system until those thoughts all start to run together. It's like the Time-Cube guy redux. Heh, I kind of hope that you keep this up, I really enjoy reading these.

      I would like to listen to a podcast or youtube channel, because I really want to hear what these thoughts sound like when spoken out loud. Maybe you sound completely normal in everyday conversation. I have to imagine that would be the case since it seems that you're employed and must have been able to hide this sort of thing in your daily interactions well enough to avoid getting taken away by the men in white coats.

      Realistically, I'm going to guess that you're actually a pretty normal guy with a little difficulty in getting your thoughts across. I realize that I must sound like a terrible troll here, so I'm sorry if that was a bit harsh but perhaps you could take a step back and take an objective look at the tone you're communicating? It comes across sounding like the narrator in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_3gLnZqcs That's exactly what I'm imagining when I read these posts.

    2. Re:Corporate Bosses say Mars exploitation .... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      Kel,

      You have me figured, I am entertained by your comments. UTube, no thanks, I am old, ugly, and overweight; So, totally inappropriate for public viewing/consumption.

      In three years, I will retire/die (more or less by 60+), maybe then, I will write my Doc. Strangelust mémoire.

      Three quotes:
      Reality is self-induced hallucination.
      Strategic reality is never tactical actuality.
      Except for applied science and math; theoretically or artistically speaking, a story is more interesting a/o believable than any truthful answer.

      I enjoyed your comments, may you always enjoy my ... spin/frame....

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  67. Good Luck. Don't Forget your tinfoil oxygen masks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We cannot accurately predict weather for a given 24 hour period, let alone build a decent atmosphere.

    Populating Mars, the Moon or any other planet by human beings is like letting a toddler get behind a lawn mower or having him monitor a nuclear facility.
    Good luck, and remember your tinfoil oxygen masks and creationist bibles, because you can always pray, if things go wrong.

  68. Re:Only if it turns out there's something valuable by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Not really. With out fast transport and no good ways to block nearly all radiation, an outbound trip will be 2/3 of a year. But a RETURN trip will be several years. As such, a return trip vastly increases the amount of radiation that a person gets and shortens a life by 10-20 years. OTOH, if you send ppl on what they expect to be a one-way mission and lets say that in 10 years, we finally start NERVA drives. At that point, it is feasible to do a several month trip back. Then these ppl can be offered a trip back, IFF they want it. My belief is that anybody that travels to mars and is there for minimum of 5-10 years, will want to stay there and build out their legacy. IOW, they will want to be settlers.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  69. UAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw the Liandri Mining Corporation... the company that will really "open up Mars" will be the Union Aerospace Corporation !

  70. Re:For the rest, see the "Mars" trilogy by Robinso by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    In all fairness, he did say the windmills added insignificant amounts of heat to the atmosphere.

  71. Watching empires die by damburger · · Score: 1

    Its almost pitiful watching the west (both US and EU) cheerfully gallop towards oblivion as political, economic, and technological powers.

    The private sector will colonise Mars? With what money, I ask. Who is going to pay the hundreds of billions needed for this complex operation?

    Our leaders have just given up. They haven't a clue what is wrong (or are in complete denial about it, e.g. peak oil) and think that if they just pray to the invisible hand everything will magically turn out OK. They are like Mayan priests desperately ramping up the human sacrifices as the crops fail around them. Clinging to their faith even tighter the more it conspicuously fails to deliver tangible results.

    Let me offer a simple prediction. SpaceX will end up being slip into a profitable, but unremarkable, satellite launch business, and a separate manned spaceflight business. Having a monopoly on US human spaceflight, the latter will cheerfully gouge NASA for every penny they can, as part of their fiduciary duty.

    US human spaceflight will stagnate even further. ESA will remain a non-presence in human spaceflight. The last of Russia's Soviet-era technology will be retired and they won't be able to replace it with anything decent. China and India will take the solar system. The End.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  72. NASA Needs a new boss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah right. Cause the corporate world has done such a bang up job with our planet so far!

    Herp!

  73. Declare Victory by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    NASA should declare victory on getting space into commerce and throw a party before their funding is completely eliminated.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  74. how it will go by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

    If the colonists don't surrender, we'll just cut off their oxygen. Including the three-breasted mutant hookers.

  75. And? by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and while we're still talking about it the Chinese will be up there actually doing it

  76. China has already expanded into Africa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a look for yourselves. Chinese people are locust. They do nothing but consume resources to invest in cheap products to undermine neighboring countries with ploys of giving locals profit margins greater than if they had domestic products, and when the Chinese enter that next country they continue liquidating assets and securing land to do the same.

    Everything in China is a duplicate of whomever they undermined. Chinese people are spread by traitors and not their own merit.

  77. Re:For the rest, see the "Mars" trilogy by Robinso by MacroRodent · · Score: 1

    The you mention are plausible extrapolations from the state of technology in the 1990's, not "unobtainium", although we now know the time table was way too optimisitic, as usual. As noted by another poster, the thousands of small windmills were aknowledged to be a bad idea even within the books (their inventor Sax Russell attends a conference on terraforming, where one paper accounts for the warming effects of various methods, and dismisses the windmills). As for solar warming, remember the terraforming also tapped geothermic (areothermic?) energy (the "moholes"), and collected more solar energy than the surface area of Mars allows by the use of space mirrors (the "soletta" of the books).