Slashdot Mirror
The Man Who Invented the Science Fiction Paperback
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Clay Latimer writes at IBD that Ian Ballantine, called by many the father of the mass-market paperback, helped change American reading habits in the 1940s and '50s founding no fewer than three prestigious paperback houses — Penguin USA, Bantam Books and Ballantine Books. But Ballantine's greatest influence on mass culture was publishing science-fiction paperback originals, with writers including Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick, Theodore Sturgeon, and Frederik Pohl and publishing the first authorized paperback editions of J.R.R. Tolkien's books. "These were great classics of world fiction," says Loren Glass. "He published in original form some of the greatest works in the golden age of science fiction. One of the interesting things about Ballantine is that he was not only a businessman trying to make money in books; he was a student of literature and publishing, and something of an intellectual."
Turning serious science fiction into a literary genre ranks among Ballantine's greatest feats. Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form. He changed that with the 1953 publication of "Fahrenheit 451," the firm's 41st book. "That was obviously a key moment in the history of science-fiction publishing," Glass says. In 1965, when Tolkien's rights to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy lapsed, Ace Books published his books without paying royalties and Tolkien responded by conducting a personal campaign against Ace. Tolkien began to urge the fans who wrote to him to inform them that the American copies were pirated: "I am now inserting in every note of acknowledgement to readers in the U.S.A. a brief note informing them that Ace Books is a pirate, and asking them to inform others." Ballantine quickly bought the rights and included Tolkien's back-cover note: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other.""
Turning serious science fiction into a literary genre ranks among Ballantine's greatest feats. Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form. He changed that with the 1953 publication of "Fahrenheit 451," the firm's 41st book. "That was obviously a key moment in the history of science-fiction publishing," Glass says. In 1965, when Tolkien's rights to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy lapsed, Ace Books published his books without paying royalties and Tolkien responded by conducting a personal campaign against Ace. Tolkien began to urge the fans who wrote to him to inform them that the American copies were pirated: "I am now inserting in every note of acknowledgement to readers in the U.S.A. a brief note informing them that Ace Books is a pirate, and asking them to inform others." Ballantine quickly bought the rights and included Tolkien's back-cover note: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other.""
I have been wondering what was behind that note for about 40 years. Thanks for the background on that.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
In other words, not only have you no dreams, you don't want anyone else to have any, either.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I agree. The idea that we are going to live on Mars is ridiculous. We have evolved to live in Earth and its gravity and its atmosphere and background radiation. We cannot live on Mars for any appreciable amount of time.
New Testament
I hear some guy named Smith wrote a fan-fiction sequel to that one.
You are very fond of the word "fervently" when ascribing beliefs to others (that I don't recognize at all), seems you are attacking a straw man to me.
But but but computers got better and, like, sci-fi and stuff!
And were we to fly... we would have...
And dreams are not just dreams, but I cannot explain it. Maybe one has to dream a little to understand that.
(That said, we're not prepared to live on Mars *now*).
> Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars, and we all sincerely nod our heads in approval.
> I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all
Nodding my head in approval.
No, the point is that we have EVOLVED to live on Earth. We cannot fly either, planes can fly and we can fly in them.
Your biological form cannot live on Mars, ever. We would die very quickly due to the environment. We can try to build technological solutions to solve that problem, but it is intractable. The difference in surface gravity itself would damage our body very quickly, not to mention radiation.
Really? You've never seen the delirious and fervent beliefs of the Space Nutters?
Start here
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
Tell me you've NEVER seen that kind of demented reply?
Thank, you, Sir, for making my high school and university days ever so much more enjoyable by putting out literally hundreds of books for me to read. And thank you to the authors for publishing through those houses, so that I could afford to buy so many.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The idea that we are forever going to remain in the form we've currently evolved into, is what's ridiculous.
What we thought Mars was like in the early 60s and early 70s was completely wrong.
Until the Mariner flyby and Vikings landing, we really had no idea how harsh Mars is.
"Prior to Ballantine Books, science fiction barely existed in novel form." Not quite! Don't forget Mary Shelly, Jules Verne, HG Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle (he wrote more than Holmes) and so on. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction for more.
Paperbacks did lead to a tremendous explosion of readers and authors and I do thank Ballantine for that!The first modern SciFi I remember reading in high school was a paperback ("Nerves" by Lester Del Rey) -- it got me hooked! But try some of the earlier stuff too, it has stood up well over time.
As a kid I loved the Tom Swift Jr series (sort of a scifi flavored Hardy Boys serial) in hardcover. If you want a real eye-opener check out some of the Tom Swift senior books from the 1910-1941 -- the scifi isn't much but it reveals much of how different the culture of the United States was at that time.
In 1965, when Tolkien's rights to his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy lapsed, Ace Books published his books without paying royalties and Tolkien responded by conducting a personal campaign against Ace. Tolkien began to urge the fans who wrote to him to inform them that the American copies were pirated
Don't let your copyrights lapse. And don't lie about people using uncopyrighted works.
First of all, who is "we"? Do you claim to speak for your family, your city, your country, your species, the whole planet?
And what does "we" mean when evolution is still happening?
It's like dinosaurs asking "Do you think we'll always live on this planet whatever we evolve into?"
Well, duh, of course you'll go extinct and evolution will continue, RIGHT ON THIS PLANET, churning the same atoms over and over with energy from the Sun.
What else could it be?
We're just someone else's dinosaurs, that's all.
Which reply would that be? Looks like a pretty good discussion, with valid points from nearly all the participants.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all, because we already have the technology and resources to do so. But that makes no sense, we'll live on Mars, that makes sense.
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth (and our geological record contains several of these) humans will survive and then there is the longer term problem of the death of the sun but we have quite a while before we need to worry about that.
I would also dispute that we have the technology to provide basic income and healthcare for all. Healthcare costs are spiralling out of control everywhere...partly because of the huge money going into medical research at the expense of other science. As for a basic, living income for all that requires some of us to work to support others who may just choose not to work. I don't think you will get many people signing up for that. The only way I see that changing is that we develop automated technology to provide the resources people need to live comfortably and have healthcare with minimal effort by others. If you want a vision of that then there are the Culture novels by Iain Banks.
Ace Books DID pirate LotR books.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/...
In 1993, a court found that the reasoning which the publishing house used to produce their own editions was flawed: where they reasoned that the lapse of a copyright renewal indicated that it was a de facto forfeiture of rights, the court disagreed. The opinion noted that provisions within a 1909 copyright law did protect the rights of the original copyright holder: While " 'forfeitures are never to be inferred from doubtful language.' Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30, 42, 59 S.Ct. 397, 403, 83 L.Ed. 470 (1938), this rule need not be relied upon: the 1909 Copyright Act makes no provision anywhere for forfeiture of copyrights of aliens because of distribution of their works without a copyright notice."
Which does not mean that Tolkein was not a dick and a two-faced bigoted stuck-up asshole.
Tolkien was not interested in seeing his books in paperback form: "When he called up Professor Tolkien in 1964 and asked if he could publish Lord of the Rings as Ace paperbacks, Tolkien said he would never allow his great works to appear in so 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book."
...
It's interesting to see that Tolkien utilized the fanbase that he so abhorred to fight back against the unauthorized editions. He was also correct: The incredible publicity that the row received, which pulled in efforts from the Science Fiction Writers of America, helped to grow the fervent readership for the tales from Middle Earth. It's also ironic that while Tolkien had resisted so " 'degenerate a form' as the paperback book," it was in that format which they first appeared and grew in popularity within the United States.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
>No, the point is that we have EVOLVED to live on Earth. We cannot fly either, planes can fly and we can fly in them.
That is the point, is it not? We did not evolve to fly, but we have built machines that make it possible for us to fly within them. Similarly we did not evolve to live on Mars, but it seems like a very tractable problem to build machines there that we can live within. Might not be to most people's tastes, but we've got plenty of shut-ins on Earth, and most city dwellers have very little idea what Earth is actually like anyway.
Radiation is easy to protect against - live under a couple yards of dirt on Mars and you'll get less radiation exposure than you do on Earth's surface.
As for gravity - you might be right, but at present we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that lower gravity will cause any major problems. We know *micorgravity* causes all manner of problems, but that is a very different thing. One of the biggest identified problems being that in microgravity your skeleton isn't subjected to the regular shockwaves created by walking, which are apparently necessary to its long-term health - and it appears that ultrasonic stimulation may mostly alleviate the problem, and even that probably won't be necessary if you're actually walking around on Mars - if the shockwaves are insufficient, just wear less padded shoes. After that you've got muscle atrophy - which isn't actually that much of a problem unless you plan to return to Earth. And then some complications associated with fluid distribution, that generally aren't any worse than prolonged bed rest, and would almost certainly be at least a much milder issue in a half-gravity field.
There are very real difficulties to be faced as people begin to move off-planet, but to date we haven't discovered anything that would be prohibitive. We may discover such issues as we actually make the attempt, but "we might not succeed" is a piss-poor excuse not to attempt something, if we have he ambition to do so.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
My favorite comment is from the physicist running the blog.
" The prevailing message is that I have offended a deep religious belief in our space future."
But I guess you wouldn't see it that way, it's like asking a color-blind person to see "green" or something.
If you can't tell which replies are the insane ones, nothing I can say will make you see them.
Tell you what though, let's compare notes in ten years. You know, the amount of time it took for NASA to get to the Moon? Since our technology is SO MUCH better now, ten years should be plenty, right?
I mean, let's ignore the stagnation of the space promises for the last four decades, let's just assume that was a glitch, and not related at all to limits on energy sources, materials, and technology.
Right? ;)
It's just laughably, bafflingly, utterly insane the amount of faith you nerds have in the space promises. It's mind boggling.
Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars, and we all sincerely nod our heads in approval.
I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all, because we already have the technology and resources to do so.
Both seem like worthy dreams to me, but the obstacles are very different.
The obstacles to colonizing Mars are merely physical - and we've been engineering our way around physical limitations since Oog first realized he could swing a tree branch to give himself a fighting chance against the things that wanted to eat him. Physics doesn't care if you make an end-run around your current limitations.
A leisure society though - that would likely require fundamentally altering the economic systems under which we currently operate - and there are a lot of very wealthy, very powerful people who don't want that to happen and will actively fight against any possible threat to their current privileged position. We could perhaps manage to remove them - but we've been trying to do that almost since the birth of civilization, to limited effect. Or perhaps we could come up with an alternative system that allows them to keep their privilege while extending a little bit of it to the rest of us - but that still requires convincing the people running things that it's worth risking change. There's also the confounding issue that humans tend to measure their wellbeing relative to others, rather than in absolute terms - so anything that improves the lives of the masses will, by necessity, reduce the perceived privilege of the powerful.
And of course there's the elephant in the room - chasing one dream in no way detracts from chasing the other.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Yeah, no kidding, we don't hear much about the 19th century canals, or about the naive visions of Venus as a lush tropical paradise under those clouds, eh? :)
Suddenly we don't hear the same "but technology gets better and we weren't meant to fly" kind of nonsense THERE, hmmm?
Come on, nerds! We can't keep the species in the same basket!
Colonize Venus! Should be simple, right?
" fundamentally altering the economic systems under which we currently operate"
And why couldn't they? They're just a human invention after all, far less real than the laws of physics. Yet we think we'll overcome physics, but somehow "economics" is this immutable object?
Long term, the systems under which societies operate change, they always have. It's just more or less painful to transition, because we refuse to do it logically or rationally, we wait until there's bloodshed and revolt in the streets.
>. And over turning our entire economic system is such a popular dream
It got president elected to two terms.
"If we're going to rebuild America's economy, then we've got to rebuild America, period" - Barack Obama
To rebuild something - a carburetor, a car, or a house, you first have to tear it apart, so Obama's done half the job.
Pretty powerful stuff, to "tear apart" something in less than eight years. One assumes that something so fragile wasn't so strong in the first place?
The reality is that our economic model is fundamentally flawed. How many prehistoric systems do you still use today?
And anyways, you're implying the system is broken, otherwise why rebuild it? And if your "somethings" were broken, won't you be happier when they're rebuilt?
Your examples are weak and difficult to comprehend. As are most of your posts, actually.
One of these authors that was writing before 1950 was Robert Heinlein who first published in 1947 and had established serious science fiction by the mid 1950's.
What lead to the popularization of science fiction, arguably, was the technological innovation in print. That is, printing paperbacks was cheap enough so that even if very few books sold, it was still possible to at least break even. The advent of the paper back is like the advent of direct to video movie. Lower risk, more titles, profits are driven by the few that sell well, the rest are pulped.
So this is what those publishing houses invented. Pulp Fiction.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So what's the story here? Is it about a publisher, or about a copyright infringement? Should I comment on one, or both? Why does it require 300 words?
I admit that either story holds some interest for me, but both together deliquesce that effect and leave me flustered and flummoxed.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I believe I answered that question quite well in the remainder of the paragraph: active opposition by the individuals who control the vast bulk of the wealth and power in our society. There's been bloodshed in the streets many, many times in our history as we try to displace them - and yet inequality and abuse by the powerful is almost as rampant as it's ever been. I don't think it's insurmountable challenge, but I think it's considerably more challenging than putting the same sorts of tin-cans we already live in in orbit onto Mars, where radiation, lack of gravity, and lack of nearby resources would all largely cease to be an issue.
And yes - we "overcome physics" all the time - not by breaking the laws, but by engineering systems that overcome the specific limitations those laws superficially impose upon our bodies. We cannot run but a paltry handful of miles per hour, but we can jump into a car that can drive faster and further than any animal can run. We cannot fly, but we can climb into a plane and exceed the speed and range of any bird that has ever flown. We cannot live in in the cold irradiated vacuum of space, but we can board a capsule that contains a protected environment in which we can survive.
If there were any physics limitation to living in space we would have a problem - but there's not. If there were we couldn't live on Earth because, in case you missed the memo, Earth is in space.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
>. And anyways, you're implying the system is broken, otherwise why rebuild it?
No, Obama said that, so HE thinks, or rather sells, the idea that America is fundamentally broken. What he, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry actually believes is anyone's guess; they're speeches are driven by polls, not principals.
On the other hand, Bush Jr would tell you exactly what he thought - no matter how stupid it was. I imagine his PR people were face-palming daily. Then you have Chris Christie, whose PR people are probably all dead from heart attacks now because he sure says whatever the heck he thinks. Which happens to be less stupid than what Bush Jr thought.
I should use the preview button, or pay attention to what autocorrect is doing.
...believing they'll ride on a dragon's back and live in a magical castle, we give them therapy and some pills.
I recently returned from a vacation, and drove home from the airport to return to my house filled with small robots, vision-enabled game consoles, and mechanized automatons of all kinds. I guess I need some pills.
Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars
No, I don't think I will live on Mars, but I think that some human will, someday. The ultimate distinguishing feature of a human is the extent to which it modifies itself and its environment, so I find it perfectly reasonable to expect that the hostilities of another planet can be overcome with the right technology. There will need to be advances in several fields (rocketry, communications, biotech, medicine, and logistics, to name a few offhand), but we're close.
To make an analogy, if we were walking from New York to Los Angeles, we've probably hit the California state line by now. The road ahead is still going to take a lot of effort, and it's still going to take a long time. We're not done yet, and everybody knows it. There is some uncertainty as to exactly how long it will take to make those last few steps, but perhaps it's time to start thinking about what we'll do when we finally arrive at our destination.
I dream about the leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all, because we already have the technology and resources to do so.
Interesting. Are you actually an expert in what it takes to have a "leisure society with basic income and healthcare for all", and do you understand the sheer amount of resources required to make that happen? And you want that to happen for all people... Let's do some math*.
If we all split everything equally, then every human gets 71,538 square meters. That's it. That's your whole life. From that area's resources, you must derive your "basic income and healthcare" using today's technology.
Of course, much of that is ocean, which really means you only get around 24,000 square meters of land If you want to use the ocean's resources, you'll have to build suitable boats from the resources on the land. About a third of of that area, though, is practically devoid of easily-accessible resources since it's desert. That leaves only about 16,000 square meters of usable land with resources.
Do realize that's a square patch of land about 415 feet on each side. It's roughly double the area of a FIFA-sanctioned international match soccer field, and that is your whole fair share of non-desert land.
Looking toward your "healthcare" need, you only have about 2000 square meters of arable land, most of which overlaps your 5000 square meters of grassland.
For illustration, that's a square patch 146 feet on each side. 1.6 times the size of an Olympic swimming pool, and that's going to feed you (fairly) for your whole life. If you need to grow raw materials for your medicinal needs, that will come out of your food supply. If your "leisure society" includes grilling a steak in the summer, you're going to have to devote quite a lot of your farmland to rais
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Uh huh. And yet we don't drive or fly faster than 50 years ago.
Limits, let me show you them. No one's going anywhere.
"in case you missed the memo, Earth is in space."
Yup, and we're already on it, we don't need to go to it.
And sure, there's no physics limitation to the orbit of the Earth either, doesn't mean we change it or do anything about it.
More than anyone else, Judith Merril probably did more to get NY publishers to take genre fiction seriously.
Sure we do - we can drive at supersonic speeds now, and fly at hypersonic ones. Granted we mostly don't, it's terribly inefficient and there just aren't that many situations where the tradeoffs are worth it - but we *can* do it.
One of the points of getting off Earth is that we *know* that planets are incredibly fragile things - lots of things could destroy life on Earth, even more could easily destroy just us. Our own actions included. And if that's the only place we live, that will be the end of us. Comparatively few things could destroy life on two planets, and most of those would be rendered relatively toothless by the enclosed ecosystems necessary to sustain life on Mars. Sure, we *could* create such ecosystems on Earth, but why would we?
Sure, changing the Earth's orbit is kind of beyond us technologically. But colonizing Mars is not, so why not do it? It will take only pocket change from the global budget - a tiny fraction of even the amount lost just to corruption. And the lessons we learn from our attempts may prove extremely useful as we begin dealing with the changes we're inflicting on our own planet, as well as for creating potentially much more Earth-useful (but far more challenging) lunar colonies.
Not to mention what we may learn once we get there - there's a pretty good chance that Mars was hospitable to life as recently as a few million years ago, so if biogenesis and/or panspermia are halfway as common as we suspect they might be, then we will likely find traces of ancient life, and quite possibly living organisms deep underground - after all most life on Earth, by mass, lives deep in the crust, and probably wouldn't even notice if the planet lost its atmosphere. There's no telling what me might learn from life that diverged from ours a half-billion years ago, to say nothing of if it arose independently.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
No one "drives" at supersonic speeds, and you didn't address my main point: FIFTY YEARS AGO, WE ALREADY DID. X-15 anyone?
Point is, we USED TO have supersonic PASSENGER transport! It was almost ROUTINE!
But we don't even have that anymore for 12 years now! But you think we're going to Mars!
You have the wonderment and naivety of a child. Bless your heart. Too bad you also seem to have the reasoning capacity of a child.
Radiation is not easy to protect against. So you are suggesting everyone live underground on Mars? Humans live ABOVE ground. We would go crazy if we had to live underground for an entire life.
And yes, our entire physical system relies on Earths' gravity. Just like "bed rest", you cannot do it for extended periods of time (the lifetime of a human).
Sure you could survive for 5-10 years, but that is not we are talking about here.
Living on Mars is unrealistic. it is OK to have dreams, but they need a basis in reality.
Well, those land speed records weren't broken on rails - what would you call the process? And I pointed out *why* we don't as well - efficiency has become more important than speed. Along with the rise of video-conferencing and other technologies that make faster transport less relevant. Faster != better.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that technology advances symmetrically and in only one direction, when that obviously is not the case. Yes, our fastest passenger planes are a bit slower today - but we also have the frakking internet, which is changing nearly all aspects of our lives in ways both subtle and dramatic.
Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with people who resort to rudeness and ad hominems to mask their lack of reasoned argument. Do have a lovely day.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"... Robert Heinlein who first published in 1947 ... "
Heinlein's first published story was "Life-Line," which came out in 1939.
Yes, exactly, the logical solution is to live underground. Or in thick-walled structures whose windows face away from the equator so that they never get line-of-sight with the radiation spewing sun. Ideally in a canyon or facing mountains that will mostly block line of sight with the sky as well. Doesn't mean you can't go outside for a walk, or have mirrors giving you a reflected view, you just want to limit your direct exposure to the sky. How is that so different than the many, many people who spend most of their time on Earth living and working indoors? How many windows have a view of structures/trees/etc. further than maybe a few hundred feet away, if that? And a glowing blue ceiling would be virtually indistinguishable from a clear Earth sky.
As for the dependency on Earth's gravity - that's entirely supposition on your part. We know the total absence of gravity causes problems in the long term, but have absolutely no data as to whether 0.38g is insufficient, and no specific reason to suspect that it is not. All the specific problems we've discovered are born of systems requiring regular impact or *some* gravitational back-pressure.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Right. So a person living in a colony is going to live underground in a 0.38g environment for 70 years without Earths sun for their entire lives. And somehow magically shield themselves from the high-energy gamma radiation bursts that hit regularly (hint: 9 feet of rock isn't going to shield you). And people are going to be able to reproduce in a such a high radiation environment, in large enough numbers that a population can be stable.
It is OK to read sci-fi, but it isn't realistic. I enjoyed Kim Robinsons books as much as the next guy, but it is just fiction.
We evolved over millions of years to live in OUR environment. Any deviation would be catastrophic. Even relatively small exposure to radiation kills humans.
We aren't going anywhere. It is even doubtful we could build a spaceship that could contain a human to make it to Mars given the harshness of space and the radiation levels.
The internet is not going to make living on Mars any easier. The internet is just a bunch of wires strung together, and has been around since the 1960s.
I'm not pretending it will be easy - it will be one of the most difficult undertakings our species has ever attempted. But isn't that all the more reason to attempt it? Big projects inspire us, and bring us together as a people. When Sputnik 1 orbited the Earth, or when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, people around the world watched in awe. Some with fear obviously, the Cold War's fear-based narrative was in full swing, but nonetheless many on all sides basked in admiration of what humanity had accomplished.
As for your particular objections:
Umm, it's exactly the same sun - just more distant/dimmer. And those of us with pale skin are already warned to avoid more than, what, 20 minutes a day of exposure? And, while you didn't mention it, the Martian day is within the 24+/-1h range to which humans have been experimentally shown to be able to adapt to.
Meanwhile low gravity should be great fun, assuming there are no serious long term health problems, and at present we have no reason to believe there will be. Biology is not nearly so finiky as you seem to believe - for the most part it works perfectly fine even in microgravity, and the few identified problems should be largely addressed by any substantial amount of gravity. Heck, many hardier organisms such as tardigrades have survived with no ill effects even after months on the hull of the space station, with all the radiation, vacuum, and extreme temperature fluctuations that entails. And they evolved for this planet just as much as we did.
As for radiation - you are aware I hope that our entire environment is radioactive? Go ahead, wave a radiation detector over a banana and see how the readings jump - the potassium so vital to our survival is a radioactive element. The question is not if we are being exposed, but if the exposure is causing damage faster than our bodies can repair it. Away from Earth's magnetic field we would get hit by a lot more ionized particle radiation, but that's actually the easiest to stop - and the estimates I've heard all say that even the small amount of radiation shielding in your average space capsule should be enough to prevent permanent damage from a month or two of exposure to interplanetary space - more than enough time for a fast heavy-lift rocket to reach Mars with a small payload of humans, with most supplies having been sent ahead on a more energy-efficient trajectory.
And Earth is exposed to even more high energy radiation than Mars: roughly the same amount of cosmic radiation, and 227% as much solar radiation. Yes, we do have about 60 miles of atmosphere protecting us, but the thing with radiation is that it's mostly the total amount of mass that protects you, with higher densities generally being somewhat more effective (1 kg of lead will block more radiation than 1kg of air). At sea level we have almost exactly one kg of atmosphere per square centimeter (=1atm pressure) , and sand has a density of 1.5-2.0g/cm^3, meaning that we'll need roughly 500-667cm of sand to get better radiation protection than on Earth. I'll admit I would have guessed at less than 16 feet, but hey, whatever gets the job done. It's not like you can see through 2 inches of sand any easier than through 200.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Radiation exposure on children and pregnant women causes birth defects. Radiation kills. You can try to dig under to escape it, but it isn't practical to live that way.
What you are talking about is scifi. We can reach Mars (maybe), but we cannot live there. We have evolved to live on Earth, on the surface, with OUR level of gravity and our low level of radiation exposure on the surface. Fetal development has evolved to take place on Earth.
You should stick to thinking about how to solve the problems on Earth. If you do the math, you will realize that a viable colony on Mars is not realistic
.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/
Radiation is not easy to protect against.
Sure it is. Earth is closer to the sun but gets less radiation at its surface because it has a thicker atmosphere.
A few feet of water on top of a dwelling would more than compensate for this. If the entire biodome had
a few feet of water on top, you would get a nice glow when the sun was shining which would probably
look very similiar to a foggy day on earth. There are many places on earth where foggy days like that
are pretty much constant and we survive just fine.
One of the points of getting off Earth is that we *know* that planets are incredibly fragile things - lots of things could destroy life on Earth, even more could easily destroy just us. Our own actions included. And if that's the only place we live, that will be the end of us. Comparatively few things could destroy life on two planets, and most of those would be rendered relatively toothless by the enclosed ecosystems necessary to sustain life on Mars.
The enclosed ecosystem on mars will most likely be considerably more fragile than earth and even if you assume that you have a self-sufficient
colony on mars, the most likely cause of annihilation which is manmade war probably wouldn't spare mars. We would probably be better off
spending our resources trying to get everyone to get along. Unfortunately this is a social problem not a technological one so it's a bit harder
to crack but there is still plenty of space and resources on earth, it would be better to try to prevent the collapse of earth than it would be to
build a few colonies on mars that would most likely die as soon if not before earth does.
BB also came out with authorized editions of ERB's Mars and Tarzan books. Ace published a few of them, but not the whole of each series. On the other hand ACE with great Frank Frazetta and Roy Kernkel covers ended up published most of ERB's other books, such as Venus and Pellucidar series, as well as the books not in any particular series (e.g. The Mad King, Beyond the Farthest Star). The argument as been made that if ACE had not published LOTR, stirring up controversy, the series would not have made such a big splash in the 60s. Those of us who grew up in the 60s have to be thankful to both Ballantine and ACE's Donald Wolheim for publishing great science fiction and fantasy.
Sig expected Real Soon Now.
Your pessimism has the same value as the thoughts of those who claimed, with equal justification, that traveling faster than 50 mph would be fatal.
The arguments for the survival of mankind in the face of a meteoric extinction event have been made many times, and no amount of solving problems on earth will save humanity from such a disaster. The same argument applies to colonizing other star systems.
Go ahead, perfect your little mud puddle. Other people will build the future without you.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Capitalism is based on the freedom to act in your rational self interest. All other systems rely on forcing people to act against their best interests. Is that what you support, bullying others to do what you want them to do? Be warned, Mr. Anonymous Coward, if you're not the strongest or meanest guy out there, you'll be the one choosing between hurting yourself and having someone else hurt you.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The Concorde was an economic failure. Being able to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The Concorde was an economic failure. Being able to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
which is apparently the thinking behind manned lunar landings.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The internet is not going to make living on Mars any easier. The internet is just a bunch of wires strung together, and has been around since the 1960s.
Yes, but the internet will ensure that when people do live on Mars, they will be able to send innumerable selfies back home.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Capitalism is based on the freedom to act in your rational self interest. All other systems rely on forcing people to act against their best interests. Is that what you support, bullying others to do what you want them to do? Be warned, Mr. Anonymous Coward, if you're not the strongest or meanest guy out there, you'll be the one choosing between hurting yourself and having someone else hurt you.
Freedom to act in my rational self interest? Hunter gatherers go out and get food from the environment when they fell hungry, or think they should stock up for the future; current theory is that it takes them an average of maybe 2-3 hours a day. Throw in another couple of hours for sharpening spearheads and weaving baskets, call it half a day's work.
If I want to get fed, I have to worry about keeping my employer happy, even if I really don't want or need to work today; I've got to be on that literal or symbolic production line first thing tomorrow AM and stick to it until that bell rings at the end of the day. And even then, there is a substantial risk that I will find myself unemployed on any given date, due to causes completely not under my control.
If unemployed, I do not have the the skills or property to provide myself with food, clothing, and/or shelter via agriculture and there is no longer such a thing as unowned land where one can be a hunter/gatherer, so I am forced to find another buyer for my time and effort, at similar terms to the above, there being few alternatives where labor can be sold according to the preferences of the laborer.
And yet, I do count my blessings that this half-assed wage slavery is orders of magnitude better than its recent ancestor, the economy of say Dickens' time.
But thank God I'm not acting against my best interests by being forced to spend half my waking hours away from my home and loved ones enriching others, in order that I may retain a home and loved ones. It's the best of all conceivable systems!!
Just some things to think about;
Any species that stays on one planet is just waiting for extinction. Oh and to the earlier ac - we are in a major extinction event right now, didn't you notice?
First nation/corporation to settle space wins. At this stage it looks like the Chinese.
Space starions and space arcs are feasible, even with our current technology.
Growth in an enclosed system is limited. Spread it into space and the limits come much later.
... Sci-fi nerds think they'll ride on a spaceship and live on Mars, and we all sincerely nod our heads in approval. ...
No, we just thought that we would be able to fly around the world in a couple of days, carry a pocket telephone that could reach the whole world and own a personal computer that would fit in an extra bedroom. But no-one would believe us and they called us stupid. Of course none of that happened ...Oh! Wait! 8-)