|
E-mail which we recieved on February 21, 2002:
Martianchief,
I dont understand. If you cant buy land on mars
because its legally free and can be claimed by anyone
why are the larger pieces more expensive to advertise
(like $6000) than the the smaller ones - what ye gonna
do - give me a page in your magazine of claims instead
of paragraph - whoa that was worth the second
mortgage! Who'd be bored enough to read them - the
goverment'll outlaw em anyway. I'm thinkin this site's
a big old con and you guys are behavin like a bunch of
parasites that have run out of land to sell on this
planet so youve moved onto the next pissin on your
territory like dogs before Bush gets there. So what if
the goverment wants to research expensive spacecrafts:
you can print more money but you cant get back all the
rocket fuel youde need for what you want. So what if
most countries started with land claims: theve spent
all there time since fightin wars that never
end.Aliens would think we were stupid: planet called
war 'MARS' where all we do is fight wars like were so
pety we need a whole world for all the fighting.
Reply sent March 03, 2002
Dear Mr. L.:
For the extra money we will put your ad in larger print. We don't intend
that people read the ads, it is simply a way of serving a legal notice.
Lawyers print contracts and notices in newspapers in small print all the
time. Just buy a copy of the Wall Street Journal some time and look under
the legal notices section in the classified ads.
All we are trying to do is to establish a human colony on Mars. NASA is not
going to do it any time soon and the Russians are bankrupt. Therefore, I
think that people should do it without the help of any government. We think
that people who contribute to the success of the venture should be rewarded.
We have nothing to give them back as a reward except land on Mars. Mars has
lots and lots of land. There is as much land on Mars as there is on all the
continents of Earth (the Oceans cover 3/4 of the surface of the Earth).
Right now land on Mars is free, but it is also valueless because it is
inaccessible. Who ever makes that land accessible will also cause that land
to suddenly have some value. That group will also be able to determine who
owns the land because they will control access.
By the way, the government cannot simply print more money to fund its
ventures. When the money supply is increased by printing money, the value
of the dollar decreases, which means that more dollars must now be used to
buy all goods. This devaluation of the dollar is called inflation. The
United States government is not authorized to print money. Only the Federal
Reserve, which is a group of privately held banks in the United States, can
print dollars. However, the Federal government can pressure the Federal
Reserve into printing money because the President of the United States gets
to appoint the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
I am an open-minded person and I am open to new ideas. We probably will
scrap the advertising scheme as a mean to raise money. However, how do you
think that we should go about raising money for this venture? I hope you
write back, we appreciate all the ideas and feedback we get.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez, MD
March 15, 2002
'Dear MR Lopez'
You don't own mars and isn't yours to give to people
or make claims on. You should probably be in an
asylum.
Thanks for the lesson in economics. Youre so clued up
I just want to kiss your feet : Lawyers make claims in
financial papers, you can't just print more money or
else it loses its value (unless yore Argentina), W
Bush doesn't have a big printing machine in the oval
office. Thanks for that. I was sure there was
something I wasn't getting. Youre responses are like a
politicians: Take an apparent mistake and discuss it
till theyve forgotten what the good part of the
original point was. Rocket capsules gonna take about
10 max: colony will need about 500 people, so 50
rocketfuel loads used up. Planning on breaking the
Kiyoto terms in record time? Let me guess: you wipe
youre ass on this planet and dont care cause your
familys not staying here. If you want to go mars with
youre own money then do it but dont pretent you can
claim land and even if you can in the future why would
want to stop others after you going to 'your land'
unless youve got some selfish money reasons: space
exploration policies blow billions $ and only fuel
peoples imagination instead of an economy: that pisses
conservatives off and now they want to turn our space
expl policy into our defence policy: economies are
expendable, planets arent!
March 15, 2002
Dear Mr. L.:
I am puzzled by your hostility. Apparently you must be opposed to the very
idea of colonizing Mars. Why? Let me try to answer some of your
objections. I am not trying to belittle you in any way, I am simply trying
to engage you in a discussion.
The Saturn V, one of the largest rockets ever built, carried less than a
million gallons of fuel when it was fully loaded for a lunar mission. Of
that, only one quarter was kerosene, the rest was simply oxygen and
hydrogen, which is basically the components of air and water. However,
assuming that ALL the fuel was gasoline and that one needed to launch 100
Saturn V size rockets to set up a colony on Mars, that would only be as much
gasoline as is used by cars in the United States in one and a half days!
(This does not include fuel used for heating, for air transportation, for
production of electricity, or fuel used in manufacturing processes such as
the production of steel.) That amount of fuel is for the whole project,
which would last at least twenty years (GASP! pass out the gas masks, the
pollution is killing me! [Sorry, I couldn't help it.]). (This is based on
one quarter of the population using their cars daily and using about a
gallon of gasoline each day.) This fuel is an investment which would
produce energy dividends because it would make accessible to mankind all of
the solar energy which currently falls on Mars and is wasted.
I agree with you that I don't own land on Mars, yet. However, if we
establish a permanent base on Mars before anyone else does, we then will,
indeed, own Mars. We are simply trying to raise funds by selling potential
ownership to land incase we do get there first. Even if we don't succeed,
it may be seen as a large enough threat to motivate someone else to get to
Mars. Even if we have a small part in advancing the colonization of Mars I
will consider our mission a success.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez, MD
March 28, 2002
Your statistics are very well thought out but I'm
thinking you have a rosie view of this wonderful
country of ours. You know how much fuel we use up in a
day or a longer period, but this won't continue for
much longer, thats what they mean when thay say
'finite resourse' and every hairbrain scheme like
yours adds on another burden. Don't assume that
everything is fine when it comes to pollution just
because its what George Bush says. Apparently I'm
stupid when it comes to rocket fuels, even though I
never mentioned petroleum once, but do you think that
kerosene, oxygen and hydrogen just appear out of thin
air from a 100% efficient process. My main objection
was that you were going backwards in technology to get
to mars cheaper like its some sort of business plan.
People's dreams for mars and the other planets is
something I take very seriously and to turn it into a
business venture is just typical of how this country
is going downhill. We always relied on big businesses
but there were a few things that remained sacred like
space exploration. It seems like you have your legal
issues sorted out for land ownership, but just because
the law allows you to reserve your territory like its
some sort of childish competition, doesnt mean I have
to agree its right!
There's nothing wrong with colonising mars, its just
colonising it with your attitude that I object to so
dont assume things about me!
March 30, 2002
Dear Mr. L.:
Thank you for your reply. You state in your letter that I am proposing the
use of old technologies in order to save money. I assume that by old
technology you mean technology which is fuel-inefficient. However, I was
using the Saturn V rocket as a reference because that is the only rocket
which has propelled people to another body in space. Nevertheless, I am a
firm believer in technological advancement and I am very interested to know
what new technology you propose for getting to Mars. Also, you say that you
take dreams for going to other planets very seriously and even state that
space exploration is something sacred. Therefore, I am also interested in
knowing what you believe should be the manner in which Mars should be
colonized. I hope you will write back. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
April 02, 2002
Raul E. Lopez @ Martian Federation:
You are anti-nasa developement of new technologies
because if the goverment sees that a private group has
used saturn V over a long and economically prosperous
experiment (and nasa wants to continue finding more
efficient space travel) the goverment will pull the
plug on funding and maybe support a business that is
doing the same as you. You think that a new horizon of
technology is a myth but:
The Marshall Space Flight Center's Advanced Space
Transportation Program (ASTP) is NASA's "Technology
Central" for future space transportation systems.
The ASTP is developing innovative technologies needed
for ultra low-cost space transportation systems as
safe and reliable as today's airliners. Intense
research efforts and technology development are aimed
toward accelerating breakthroughs that will make it
possible for ordinary people to live, work and play on
the space frontier.
New-generation launch vehicles
The program's primary emphasis is on technologies for
3rd Generation RLVs that could be operational in a
2025 timeframe. The goal is to develop space
transportation systems that would be 100 times cheaper
and 10,000 times safer than today's launch vehicles.
These true spaceliners of the future could take off
from aero-space ports that will accommodate both air
and space vehicles.
Air-breathing propulsion, magnetic levitation, highly
integrated airframe structures that morph in flight,
and intelligent vehicle health management systems are
some of the technologies being considered for a 3rd
Generation RLV.
The ASTP is also investigating technologies for a 4th
Generation RLV that could be operational in the 2040
timeframe. The goal is to make space travel 20,000
times safer and 1,000 times cheaper than today's
systems. Then, passenger space travel would become
routine.
Dramatic improvements in our access to space will
enable exciting new space markets, including:
Space adventure tourism and travel
Clean, solar electric power beamed from space to
Earth's population
Space hospitals for treatment of chronic pain and
disabilities
Asteroid mining of high-value minerals
Worldwide, two-hour express package delivery
& Beyond Earth's orbit:
The ASTP is developing technologies to decrease the
trip times and reduce the weight of the propulsion
systems required for planetary missions - and even
bolder missions to the edge of our solar system and
beyond. Electrodynamic tethers, space sails,
aeroassist and high-power electric propulsion are just
a few of the technologies being developed to achieve
the goals.
The ASTP is also conducting fundamental research on
the cutting edge of modern science and engineering,
including fission, fusion and antimatter propulsion,
and breakthrough physics theories that might enable
thrusting against space-time itself and
faster-than-light travel.
The race to mars shouldn't be a race to see who can
make the most or the quickest buck, or to see who can
own it / conquer it / dominate it - thats why space
expl. is sacred - its our second chance to make
something for our children other than another brief
flirtations with peace followed by another war.
April 03, 2002
Dear Mr. Lincoln:
NASA obviously has the resources to get the best PR agencies in the nation.
However, the space shuttle was supposed to make space flight cheaper and
safer also. It is no cheaper, and the only deaths during a manned flight on
an American rocked occured with the space shuttle. There are cheaper ways
to get to space, and NASA could possibly develop these other means of
transportation, but I do not think that they will get the funding to do so.
I am trying to promote the establishment of a privately funded colony on
Mars, not only because I think Mars should be independant from rule from
Earth, but, also because I think that the governments of the Earth do not
have the motivation necessary to establish such a colony. Once a colony is
estabished through private funding, and becomes economically viable and
profitable then there will be plenty of money to develop advanced
transportation systems. The easiest savings will come from producing fuel
in space from water or oxides, and that is what we are proposing first.
Another transportation system which has already been tested is a nuclear
powered rocket which uses hydrogen as the propellant. I believe a prototype
motor was tested in the 1960s in a project called NOVA.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
April 05, 2002
Mr Lopez
I don't know what to say to that. Its like trying to
talk to a brick wall - or maybe just a politician that
has a manipulated answer to every proposal. Theyre not
making it up - the uses of rockets and economic
viability may be fluffed up a bit by optimistic PR but
the technology and knowhow is still there -look up the
nasa research pages -the shuttle was a good idea gone
wrong because it didnt move forward in its
develpopement as fast as it could have - a bit like
your project. I don't mind getting the ball rolling
with a rocket powered mission, but sticking to this
for economic reasons risks peoples safety and holds up
progress as business minds invariably do. And the
discovery shuttle didnt just blow up - I cant remember
the exact details but Ive seen a report that it was to
do with poor checking of the ignition system & the
seperation rigging system to do with the saturn V
ROCKET. Your energies would be far better spent
getting behind the campaign to train astronauts on
that island that looks like mars, with a plan to get
funding from the US + international funds maybe eg.
the Euro space agency and Russia for a full blown
mission one of which will eventually invovle an
unmanned attempt to melt the polar icecaps so that
there is actually a point to arguing abou who owns the
land.
April 09, 2002
Dear Mr. L.:
I apologize for frustrating you. I agree with you that eventually other
propulsion systems will make travel to Mars more affordable. However, I
think that it will be many years before these propulsion systems become
viable. In the meantime, we can use proven technology and up grade it to
make it as efficient as possible. For example, the Saturn V could be
modified so that the first stage uses liquid hydrogen as its fuel in the
same way that the upper stages did. This fuel can be produced by
electrolysis of water in an environmentally friendly way using electric
power generated by windmills which are often located in places far away from
population centers, such as Minnesota. Establishing an economically viable
colony on Mars would then create the economic incentive to developed
advanced propulsion systems. By the way, the challenger exploded because of
a defect in the O-rings of the solid propulsion boosters, a problem unique
to the Space Shuttle. The Saturn V was purely a liquid propellant rocket.
The launch occurred in weather too cold for the O-rings to function
properly.
Melting the polar icecaps would take such an exorbitant amount of energy and
would cost so much money that doing so is outside of the time frame of
anyone alive today. The best plan which I have read about for terra-forming
Mars is to create greenhouse gasses using chloro and fluoro carbons to
enhance the CO2 greenhouse effect. CO2 is transparent to certain infra-red
frequencies and this allows great quantities of energy to escape. Sealing
those frequency windows with man-made greenhouse gasses would effectively
trap that heat. This method would also be expensive and would be feasible
only after a significant industrialized human presence develops on Mars.
Therefore, I think that a human presence on Mars must precede any terra-
forming efforts. In the meantime, small scale localized terra-forming
efforts in the form of small greenhouses could be highly effective for
supplying the food, energy and raw materials needed by a Martian
civilization. Greenhouses would produce oxygen and help warm the soil
underneath them and thereby each of them, like a collective of ants, would
make a small contribution to the Terraforming of Mars.
I have a question for you. I don't know if you think that any of your
children or grandchildren will ever live on Mars, but would you want them to
live in a society which is partially ruled by Russia? I don't. I want my
Martian descendants to life in a free and independent Mars. I guess that in
a way we are the Free Mars Society.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
|
|
|
|
|
