As a concerned, long-time Sega customer, I feel obligated to respond to Sega's recent "Gestapo/bully" tactics that you "Daniel R. Harris of BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP" have been heading up.
Sega, under your counsel, is effectively trying to ban free-speech. According to your "legal" template, you state...
"Most gamers would not walk into a store and steal a Dreamcast title off the shelf. These same gamers, however, emboldened by sites like yours and the appearance of anonymity provided by the Internet, do precisely that by copying and downloading the same software titles."
By your own wording, you are calling me, a long-time Sega customer, a thief. You specifically state, that most gamers wouldn't walk into a store and steal a Dreamcast title. That is absolutely true of me, I would never consider stealing a game. Then you go on to state, that these same gamers, because of the Internet, will pirate a game. Right there, in that sentence, you, Mr. Harris, are calling me a thief. I do not appreciate your lies.
I am not a thief, Mr. Harris. I own a Sega Dreamcast, a Sega Genesis 3, a 1st gen Sega Genesis, and a Game Gear hand-held system. Between these machines, I own more games than can conveniently be counted. I OWN them Mr. Harris. I also own a computer, a few computers in fact, and a CDRW drive. I've NEVER pirated a game. I've never even used my CDRW to backup a Sega game. But it would be well within my legal rights to do so.
Spurred by your actions, and the actions of Sega of America, I will now be backing-up ALL of my Dreamcast games, that can be backed-up; Just as I've backed up every piece of computer software that I've ever purchased. Furthermore, I will post advice, and technical information, on every relevant message board, and web site that I can find, to help my fellow gamers, maintain their current game collections.
I'm not a pirate Mr. Harris. I do not support piracy in any way. I believe, and accurately so, that it can ruin an industry. But I am a formerly loyal, and previously long-time Sega customer. The $700+ that I've spent on my Dreamcast, this year alone, will be the last penny Sega gets of my money. I realize that $700 is not allot of money in the big picture, but $700 multiplied by the rest of my game-buying life is.
I honestly hope that you will apologize to me, for calling me a thief. And I honestly hope that Sega will apologize to their customers, for allowing you to call them all thieves. You represent all that is bad about the gaming industry.
For the a fraction of the price of a manned mission that could easily approach several hundred billion dollars...
The number you're quoting, originally estimated at some $400 billion in the early 90's, is seriously out of date. That number was based on sending a massive interplanetary-cruiser style vehicle, capable of hauling along enough fuel to get to Mars and back. Ship construction would all be done in LEO (low Earth orbit), and the vehicle would only be in Mars orbit for about 30 days. A brief surface mission would be included (flags and footprint), and then it would be back to Earth for another 6+ months in zero-G. If this is the style of mission you're talking about, then your absolutely correct, it makes no sense. Politically, economically, scientifically, and rationally, it's just plain stupid. What you get out of it is probably less science than a combination robotic lander and orbiter.
Fortunately for everyone (tax payers especially), this is not the mission NASA is currently purposing. NASA has a Mars reference Mission somewhere on it's web site (can't find it right now). The reference mission, is very similar to the Mars Direct mission. Mars Direct was designed to be done for less than $50 billion (indeed some estimates as low as $15 - 25 billion), spread out over about 4 years.
This style of mission involves sending an empty ERV (Earth Return Vehicle) and developing propellant on planet for a period of approximately 2 years. At this point a manned mission, as well as a second ERV can be launched, after it's been verified that the first ERV has produced fuel for the return mission. Even if something goes wrong with the first ERV, the second ERV is being sent, which will begin fueling itself, while people are on-planet. Ideally, the second ERV will not be necessary, and 2 years following, it will be ready for a second crew, along with a third ERV.
This Mars Direct style mission is designed to establish a permanent human-presence on Mars. It's also far cheaper than sending an inter-planetary cruiser, with all the necessary provisions to brute-force it. The Mars Direct mission will allow for real science to get accomplished by people. In fact, it would be hard not to get science accomplished, with a surface stay of about 2 years. Additionally, the voyage out and back, will be accomplished in a 1/3 artificial gravity environment, created by rotating the HAB end-over-end with a burnt-out upper-stage engine. This will help to minimize the problems associated with long-term exposure to zero-g.
"This ranks among one of the top ten simplistic statements made by would-be space cadets."
And it remains a statement I stick by. Granted, a 2.5 year surface stay may have been a stretch 30 years ago, but not a quick-return mission, on-planet for only 30 days.
"We still have to perfect the ability to send Housing, Life-support and supplies..."
You bring up a good point. We do need to learn to deploy equipment effectively. How many successful Mars landings have there been... 3? What better way to practice this, than by sending habs, ERVs, etc. to the planet now? Equipment endurance in a harsh environment could be successfully tested, in-situ propellant generation demonstrated, everything needed for a human mission tested years before a crew is sent. Piggybacking some science on these endurance tests would be feasible as well. And if nothing else, a future crew would have some spare-parts, and back-up bases for re-supply, or emergency situations.
One problem with many ill-thought manned stunts in space is that historically too many good unmanned programs get shafted to fund one big manned stunt that gives a bare fraction of the return from the cancelled work.
Why not begin with shafting some manned money-wasting programs already in development? How many shuttle launches are really necessary? Why not use some of the wasted money on regular shuttle launches to get the lifting-body, re-usable shuttle replacement(?) finished more quickly? Or how about waiting on the ISS until a more efficient re-usable craft is completed? Better still, why not kill the ISS altogether (or make major changes, and contract work out to Russia, instead of allowing them to miss-manage the project). The ISS is not a stepping-stone to Mars. There's no need for it on a lunar mission. Besides further zero-G experiments, and international cooperation, why have the ISS at all?
I'm all for robotic probes, and missions. But they should not occur at the expense of manned missions, where real science is accomplished. This is not to belittle the science accomplished with probes, but to get real work done on Mars, we need people. Mars is indeed, the next frontier. How, and when we get there, and if we support it in the long-term, will be the mission standard by which all future human planetary exploration is accomplished. Dragging our feet now, may ultimately kill future manned exploration attempts.
Your type of thinking is what is killing manned space exploration. Yea, I think I'll stick to being considered a "would-be space-cadet", thank you. Where's your sense of vision, and exploration, or even science for that matter?
On the contrary, we've had reason to send people to Mars for the past few hundred years. We've had the ability, for about 30 years. The fact that we know it exists is reason enough to go there. The discovery that there might be water, just adds to the list of reasons to go. Based on our current understanding of the atmosphere on Mars (about 4 millibar of pressure?), I don't see how we could find any liquid water. The greatest possibility would probably be, at a very low point in Valles Marineris, or as you stated, the Hellas basin. Even still, the presence of liquid water on the surface is highly questionable. But the discovery of a significant amount of frozen water on the surface, is a completely different thing. That ice may cap a reservoir of water. If nothing else, it hints at vast quantities of water existing below the surface The primarily Carbon dioxide atmosphere, the presence of any type of water, the fact that Mars orbits within a "reasonable" distance to use chemical propulsion... we should be there already (but let's use thermal nuclear, or plasma to get there quicker). What I consider the biggest obstacle is the totally unknown; the medium and long term effects of the dust/sand/rust particles seeping into the space suits. Would they destroy the equipment? Or would a slow leak be acceptable? We can't very well send too many extra suits. And if we commit to the 2 ½ year surface stay, we could end up sitting in the hab for two years, operating remote vehicles (a waste of human presence on the surface; stay in space if that's the case). Any thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
It's comments like this that make slashdot a less effective community.
To: drharris@brobeck.com
As a concerned, long-time Sega customer, I feel obligated to respond to Sega's recent "Gestapo/bully" tactics that you "Daniel R. Harris of BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP" have been heading up.
Sega, under your counsel, is effectively trying to ban free-speech. According to your "legal" template, you state...
"Most gamers would not walk into a store and steal a Dreamcast title off the shelf. These same gamers, however, emboldened by sites like yours and the appearance of anonymity provided by the Internet, do precisely that by copying and downloading the same software titles."
By your own wording, you are calling me, a long-time Sega customer, a thief. You specifically state, that most gamers wouldn't walk into a store and steal a Dreamcast title. That is absolutely true of me, I would never consider stealing a game. Then you go on to state, that these same gamers, because of the Internet, will pirate a game. Right there, in that sentence, you, Mr. Harris, are calling me a thief. I do not appreciate your lies.
I am not a thief, Mr. Harris. I own a Sega Dreamcast, a Sega Genesis 3, a 1st gen Sega Genesis, and a Game Gear hand-held system. Between these machines, I own more games than can conveniently be counted. I OWN them Mr. Harris. I also own a computer, a few computers in fact, and a CDRW drive. I've NEVER pirated a game. I've never even used my CDRW to backup a Sega game. But it would be well within my legal rights to do so.
Spurred by your actions, and the actions of Sega of America, I will now be backing-up ALL of my Dreamcast games, that can be backed-up; Just as I've backed up every piece of computer software that I've ever purchased. Furthermore, I will post advice, and technical information, on every relevant message board, and web site that I can find, to help my fellow gamers, maintain their current game collections.
I'm not a pirate Mr. Harris. I do not support piracy in any way. I believe, and accurately so, that it can ruin an industry. But I am a formerly loyal, and previously long-time Sega customer. The $700+ that I've spent on my Dreamcast, this year alone, will be the last penny Sega gets of my money. I realize that $700 is not allot of money in the big picture, but $700 multiplied by the rest of my game-buying life is.
I honestly hope that you will apologize to me, for calling me a thief. And I honestly hope that Sega will apologize to their customers, for allowing you to call them all thieves. You represent all that is bad about the gaming industry.
For the a fraction of the price of a manned mission that could easily approach several hundred billion dollars...
The number you're quoting, originally estimated at some $400 billion in the early 90's, is seriously out of date. That number was based on sending a massive interplanetary-cruiser style vehicle, capable of hauling along enough fuel to get to Mars and back. Ship construction would all be done in LEO (low Earth orbit), and the vehicle would only be in Mars orbit for about 30 days. A brief surface mission would be included (flags and footprint), and then it would be back to Earth for another 6+ months in zero-G. If this is the style of mission you're talking about, then your absolutely correct, it makes no sense. Politically, economically, scientifically, and rationally, it's just plain stupid. What you get out of it is probably less science than a combination robotic lander and orbiter.
Fortunately for everyone (tax payers especially), this is not the mission NASA is currently purposing. NASA has a Mars reference Mission somewhere on it's web site (can't find it right now). The reference mission, is very similar to the Mars Direct mission. Mars Direct was designed to be done for less than $50 billion (indeed some estimates as low as $15 - 25 billion), spread out over about 4 years.
This style of mission involves sending an empty ERV (Earth Return Vehicle) and developing propellant on planet for a period of approximately 2 years. At this point a manned mission, as well as a second ERV can be launched, after it's been verified that the first ERV has produced fuel for the return mission. Even if something goes wrong with the first ERV, the second ERV is being sent, which will begin fueling itself, while people are on-planet. Ideally, the second ERV will not be necessary, and 2 years following, it will be ready for a second crew, along with a third ERV.
This Mars Direct style mission is designed to establish a permanent human-presence on Mars. It's also far cheaper than sending an inter-planetary cruiser, with all the necessary provisions to brute-force it. The Mars Direct mission will allow for real science to get accomplished by people. In fact, it would be hard not to get science accomplished, with a surface stay of about 2 years. Additionally, the voyage out and back, will be accomplished in a 1/3 artificial gravity environment, created by rotating the HAB end-over-end with a burnt-out upper-stage engine. This will help to minimize the problems associated with long-term exposure to zero-g.
"This ranks among one of the top ten simplistic statements made by would-be space cadets."
And it remains a statement I stick by. Granted, a 2.5 year surface stay may have been a stretch 30 years ago, but not a quick-return mission, on-planet for only 30 days.
"We still have to perfect the ability to send Housing, Life-support and supplies..."
You bring up a good point. We do need to learn to deploy equipment effectively. How many successful Mars landings have there been... 3? What better way to practice this, than by sending habs, ERVs, etc. to the planet now? Equipment endurance in a harsh environment could be successfully tested, in-situ propellant generation demonstrated, everything needed for a human mission tested years before a crew is sent. Piggybacking some science on these endurance tests would be feasible as well. And if nothing else, a future crew would have some spare-parts, and back-up bases for re-supply, or emergency situations.
One problem with many ill-thought manned stunts in space is that historically too many good unmanned programs get shafted to fund one big manned stunt that gives a bare fraction of the return from the cancelled work.
Why not begin with shafting some manned money-wasting programs already in development? How many shuttle launches are really necessary? Why not use some of the wasted money on regular shuttle launches to get the lifting-body, re-usable shuttle replacement(?) finished more quickly? Or how about waiting on the ISS until a more efficient re-usable craft is completed? Better still, why not kill the ISS altogether (or make major changes, and contract work out to Russia, instead of allowing them to miss-manage the project). The ISS is not a stepping-stone to Mars. There's no need for it on a lunar mission. Besides further zero-G experiments, and international cooperation, why have the ISS at all?
I'm all for robotic probes, and missions. But they should not occur at the expense of manned missions, where real science is accomplished. This is not to belittle the science accomplished with probes, but to get real work done on Mars, we need people. Mars is indeed, the next frontier. How, and when we get there, and if we support it in the long-term, will be the mission standard by which all future human planetary exploration is accomplished. Dragging our feet now, may ultimately kill future manned exploration attempts.
Your type of thinking is what is killing manned space exploration. Yea, I think I'll stick to being considered a "would-be space-cadet", thank you. Where's your sense of vision, and exploration, or even science for that matter?
On the contrary, we've had reason to send people to Mars for the past few hundred years. We've had the ability, for about 30 years. The fact that we know it exists is reason enough to go there.
The discovery that there might be water, just adds to the list of reasons to go. Based on our current understanding of the atmosphere on Mars (about 4 millibar of pressure?), I don't see how we could find any liquid water. The greatest possibility would probably be, at a very low point in Valles Marineris, or as you stated, the Hellas basin. Even still, the presence of liquid water on the surface is highly questionable. But the discovery of a significant amount of frozen water on the surface, is a completely different thing. That ice may cap a reservoir of water. If nothing else, it hints at vast quantities of water existing below the surface
The primarily Carbon dioxide atmosphere, the presence of any type of water, the fact that Mars orbits within a "reasonable" distance to use chemical propulsion... we should be there already (but let's use thermal nuclear, or plasma to get there quicker).
What I consider the biggest obstacle is the totally unknown; the medium and long term effects of the dust/sand/rust particles seeping into the space suits. Would they destroy the equipment? Or would a slow leak be acceptable? We can't very well send too many extra suits. And if we commit to the 2 ½ year surface stay, we could end up sitting in the hab for two years, operating remote vehicles (a waste of human presence on the surface; stay in space if that's the case). Any thoughts?