NationStates Jolt Archive

We at Walt's Domion are all for wild scientific proposals; we are, however, not willing to put them to practice unless success is likely.
This appears to be a proposal we would immediately turn down.

...

However, it only appears to be so. In a long term scenario, it might actually work. Read this article (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mars_ice_tech_020619-1.html) about water on Mars. Apparently, the Red Planet contains a lot of the necessary resources to make a colony self-sufficient, which is one of the primary requirements of such a colony (we are not going to move resources from the Earth to Mars; that would mean a higher waste of energy than a gain of space). Yet, as the article says as well, we need to know more about the planet Mars as an ecological system. How does nature act there? Are there 'catastrophes', like our earthquakes and hurricanes, if so, how to defend for them. How should we deal with the soil, how should we deal with water.

Therefore, serious and extensive research needs to be done in this matter, before launching bold quests.

One more thing: Walt Dixie would never agree to state that the environment of the Earth is to fragile to support the current rates of population growth. It is true that we are burdening the environment, yet this has more to do with the way we act in the environment than the amount of people we act with. We do not wish to state what you said, as it would imply that we shouldn't further investigate how to efficiently deal with our own environment.

We would agree to a rewritten Mission To Mars resolution, which would include the first field of research, and exclude the statement referred to. Also, we would greatly welcome a mention of the second field of research; this, however, is not a necessary condition.

Respectfully,
Michael Malthus

Putting aside the issue of whether or not funding such a mission is a good use of UN resources, the examples of the Moon Race and the International Space Station have shown that competition results in faster results than cooperation among space programs in the absence of a deadline. As such, I would not see a UN-funded Mars mission so much as having the UN instead push its member nations to create their own Mars programs. While expensive, a Mars mission is still within the resources of any large nation with a good economy.

I am inclined to feel that a mission would not be good use of UN resources. These are turbalent times and as Foreign Affaris Minister and General Secretary (UN Delegate) I feel that the UN needs to be a military organisation defending my region when I need it and butting out when I want to invade another region.

The United-Kingdom, the Realms of the Darkness
General Secretary and Foreign Affairs Minister

Whereas history indeed showed us that the competition of space programs had more success than cooperation, history can be very misleading -and here it is.
First off, there was cooperation of humans necessary before the space race even began! The US would have had no potential space power at all, were it not for Werner Von Braun, the German scientist who has invented the first real rockets. Hence, it is shown that influences of other nations can be very fruitful. It is also shown, and this is more important, that the entire space technology has been invented because of military issues. Werner Von Braun invented the V-2 for Hitler; later on, the Space Race started because of military reasons. (for more info: here (http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/gal114/SpaceRace/sec100/sec100.htm) )
And what is even more interesting: the Space Race ended because a symbolic victory had been made: landing a man upon the moon.

When the race to the Moon ended, the Soviet and American manned spaceflight programs moved in other directions. In the United States, many expected the Apollo missions to be the beginning of an era in which humans would move out into space, to bases on the Moon and space stations in Earth orbit, perhaps on to Mars. Others questioned whether costly manned spaceflight should continue, now that the race was won.

Now, both nations continued their space projects, but at the same pace that we now have space projects. The reason for this is mostly because they directed their projects in different directions. So, the main incentive was not the idea of two competiting countries, but the idea of competition revolved around the same kind of projects. So, there's no reason why we should not cooperate ; competitition can still be present, if different nations work on the same project, and the first one developing a suitable solution can then 'sell' their technology to the others. The only difference is that competition is not necessary: allies can focus their efforts on different aspects of a certain projects, and then combine their efforts into a working solution.

An interesting article I also stumbled upon: China vs US (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/28/2)

Many of us (myself included) already have colonies on Mars ICly, so this would not affect near future nations (like myself), far future nations, past nations (stone age people can not reach Mars period), or Fantasy nations (either your mages can migic you to Mars or you can't get there) I do not support proposals lwith such specific time lines.

Many of us (myself included) already have colonies on Mars ICly, so this would not affect near future nations (like myself), far future nations, past nations (stone age people can not reach Mars period), or Fantasy nations (either your mages can migic you to Mars or you can't get there) I do not support proposals lwith such specific time lines.

Well, with all due respect, but before you make a comment, you should actually think about what you're saying. There is no proposal that does not have a specific time line. You could talk about abolishing slave labour; however, this has been done in the past. You could talk about allowing women to vote; however, this has been done in the past. Proposals that would be relevant to today's real world would already be done in the near or distant future. All proposals have a specific time line, so by that logic and your statement, you shouldn't be in the UN at all.

Respectfully,
Michael Malthus

Uranus sounds like a better prospect.

Well, with all due respect, but before you make a comment, you should actually think about what you're saying. There is no proposal that does not have a specific time line. You could talk about abolishing slave labour; however, this has been done in the past. You could talk about allowing women to vote; however, this has been done in the past. Proposals that would be relevant to today's real world would already be done in the near or distant future. All proposals have a specific time line, so by that logic and your statement, you shouldn't be in the UN at all.

Respectfully,
Michael Malthus
No, many countries (IRL) still do not allow women to vote and slavery still exists illegally in most of the world IRL.

Well, with all due respect, but before you make a comment, you should actually think about what you're saying. There is no proposal that does not have a specific time line. You could talk about abolishing slave labour; however, this has been done in the past. You could talk about allowing women to vote; however, this has been done in the past. Proposals that would be relevant to today's real world would already be done in the near or distant future. All proposals have a specific time line, so by that logic and your statement, you shouldn't be in the UN at all.

Respectfully,
Michael Malthus
No, many countries (IRL) still do not allow women to vote and slavery still exists illegally in most of the world IRL.

I think slavery still exists legally in some places.

I get your point, but it doesn't even touch the core of what I was saying. There's no point in disproving my illustration; you have to disprove my argument, which is something entirely different.

Also, why Uranus? Does it have water in abundant resources? Does it have a stable movement around the sun, temperature-wise? I doubt it.

I get your point, but it doesn't even touch the core of what I was saying. There's no point in disproving my illustration; you have to disprove my argument, which is something entirely different.

Also, why Uranus? Does it have water in abundant resources? Does it have a stable movement around the sun, temperature-wise? I doubt it.

1. I wasn'y arguing with you, I was saying why I did not support the proposal.

2. It is an old very unfunny joke. Figure it out.

I get your point, but it doesn't even touch the core of what I was saying. There's no point in disproving my illustration; you have to disprove my argument, which is something entirely different.

Also, why Uranus? Does it have water in abundant resources? Does it have a stable movement around the sun, temperature-wise? I doubt it.

The sun may not exist forever. Jupiter is a giant ball of gas. If we are somehow able to ignite it, perhaps it will give all the warmth you need...

As for water, even on earth water is now bottled...

Your spokesman's called Malthus? Irony much?

It's a little joke I have with my freelancing employés. His name is not really Michael Malthus, nor is mine Walt Dixie. My Minister of Social Affairs is called David Ducat. You figure it out. I might something about it when I have the time, I was thinking about writing the Walt Dixie philosophy too sometimes. However, unlike my advisor, I have to spend my time on other affairs as well.

Oppressed Possums, you are right, in a sense, about the water. I was having a discussion the other day with an economist I am considering to hire, and his point made sense: a colony doesn't have to self-sustaining. However, the profit (in the broad sense; the profit for the human race, the economic benefit) of whatever resources acquired on the colony must be sufficient to pay off the costs of sustaining life on the colony, plus the transportation costs.
This means that there must be quite some bit of resources, if we are to regularly ship bottles of water to and fro. Therefore, a self-sustaining colony is more likely to be the only working initiative, even though I can't exclude scenario's than the one described above. I hope this makes sense, I don't communicate as well as MM.

Cheers,
Walt Dixie

I see no reason as to why we need to search Mars. What will we achieve from that other than huge amounts of money being wasted when it could've been used to help the poor and other such causes.

Lets sort out this planet first and learn all about our own planet before we go wasting money on other planets that will not help us in many ways.