Management, money people, and marketing suck.

Kyleran

cameltosis said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

olepi said:

Looking at music as I feel it's easier to reference, I've always wondered what exactly makes a particular song really popular while far more languish in obscurity?

I'm sure there's volumes published on this subject, countless studies done as the "money" men try to boil the process down into more of an exact science and less of an art as has been traditional I feel.

Even without all of that, I wonder about myself, years ago I loved Bruce Springsteen's music, from the earliest days in Asbury Park up through Born in the USA until....I longer did.

For some reason around Nebraska I stopped liking his work, no idea why, but his songs no longer resonated.

I guess the change could be mostly in me however while my music tastes broadened significantly over the years, I still enjoy his folk style of music from newer artists even today.

Just something I've puzzled over the years and it applies to gaming as well.

My apologies for keeping referencing Raph's book, but he touches on this very subject in "a theory of fun".

It's all to do with our brains being pattern matching machines.

Our brains take pleasure in pattern matching, and music is nothing more than a series of patterns made of sound. Some of those patterns are very simple and thus can be understood and enjoyed by more people.

If the patterns are too complex, they come across as a confusing mess to your ears, and you won't enjoy it. Likewise, if the patterns are too simple, they come across as boring.

Of course, your own level of understanding is not static, it evolves over time depending on how frequently you listen to music. The music you enjoyed as a youth is likely to be pretty simple, and often will be a modern take on whatever your parents listened to. As you grow up, you learn those patterns to the point they become boring, so you move on to more complex patterns or patterns that are simply new.

So, when it comes to you and Bruce, chances are that you either learned the patterns of his music so well that they became boring to you, or it may be that he changed the patterns of his music with his later albums and you just didn't enjoy those new patterns because they were too simple, or too similiar to other music that you already knew.

Awesome reply, explains so much which gets me to thinking the same concept probably applies to other forms of entertainment, be it art, movies or gaming.

To be really popular the work needs patterns which appeal the a larger target audience, in which case it might explain why MMORPGS with more simplistic patterns became the norm  over the years.

Besides having broad appeal, presumably they are easier and cheaper to create and have a better chance at a higher payout.

It's not unreasonable to say the core patterns for most games regardless of genre provide players sets of game play loops, patterns if you will, which are designed to be repeated regularly based on gamer's preferences.

Not surprising then to note hard core raiding isn't favored by the masses, the patterns while perhaps not necessarily difficult might be more complex or wearying than most players are looking for in their games.

I've often heard from folks who said they don't like MMORPGs equate their gameplay loops such as raiding, mining, market trading to being more of a second job which they definitely aren't looking for.

Underlying their statement what really is being said they find particular patterns very boring, too time consuming or are tedious and / or repetitious while not feeling very rewarding in the process.

So unfortunately for those seeking more complex MMORPGs,  experienced game development management (or music industry moguls) know games / music created around more simplistic patterns are what has and will likely continue to sell very well.

Well explains the popularity of console games, boy bands, TV sitcoms, superhero movies, fast food restaurants and female pop singers over the years and why most of them aren't very appealing to me. 

Also makes sense why games, music, or movies that I often don't care for often are repeating the same simplistic patterns which I might have even initially enjoyed now no longer hold much appeal.

delete5230

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

NASA is only an excuse to use tax payers money to put a few orbital space stations for the rich Demarcates if needed.  Don't worry, no one gets a free ride and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer "are not" the chosen.

Remember space radiation passes through steel and metal like it's not even there. It's hostel and I don't care what Top Secret crap they have to off set that...... 500 more years ! 

Your tax $$ at work.

Scot

delete5230 said:

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

NASA is only an excuse to use tax payers money to put a few orbital space stations for the rich Demarcates if needed.  Don't worry, no one gets a free ride and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer "are not" the chosen.

Remember space radiation passes through steel and metal like it's not even there. It's hostel and I don't care what Top Secret crap they have to off set that...... 500 more years ! 

Your tax $$ at work.

Living in space indefinitely would currently require something like an asteroid as a radiation shield and rotation to maintain gravity. But living on the likes of Mars or Titan would be easier long term though would still be a huge effort. My estimate of when colonists (not people in a space programme) could go is pure guesswork, the space race occurs in fits and starts. You would be talking at least 75 years from now.

Ungood

Scot said:

delete5230 said:

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

NASA is only an excuse to use tax payers money to put a few orbital space stations for the rich Demarcates if needed.  Don't worry, no one gets a free ride and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer "are not" the chosen.

Remember space radiation passes through steel and metal like it's not even there. It's hostel and I don't care what Top Secret crap they have to off set that...... 500 more years ! 

Your tax $$ at work.

Living in space indefinitely would currently require something like an asteroid as a radiation shield and rotation to maintain gravity. But living on the likes of Mars or Titan would be easier long term though would still be a huge effort. My estimate of when colonists (not people in a space programme) could go is pure guesswork, the space race occurs in fits and starts. You would be talking at least 75 years from now.

Have you ever thought that if we destroy this planet we deserve to die with it?

Ungood

AlBQuirky said:

Ungood said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

olepi said:

A unique problem with game development is that like music and movies, it has to be fun, or entertaining. Software that does a task just has to work. But a game has to be fun to succeed.

But who gets to say what is fun and what isn't?

All managers know that once you bring in the creative types, things get complicated.

The player gets to say what is fun, but only for that player. If a sufficient number of players find the game fun for themselves it will succeed.

Great potential point as I feel the greatest challenge for artists, musicians and developers to create something popular.

Looking at music as I feel it's easier to reference, I've always wondered what exactly makes a particular song really popular while far more languish in obscurity?

I'm sure there's volumes published on this subject, countless studies done as the "money" men try to boil the process down into more of an exact science and less of an art as has been traditional I feel.

Even without all of that, I wonder about myself, years ago I loved Bruce Springsteen's music, from the earliest days in Asbury Park up through Born in the USA until....I longer did.

For some reason around Nebraska I stopped liking his work, no idea why, but his songs no longer resonated.

I guess the change could be mostly in me however while my music tastes broadened significantly over the years, I still enjoy his folk style of music from newer artists even today.

Just something I've puzzled over the years and it applies to gaming as well.

Some people get stuck in a particular era of music, listening to nothing but their favorite oldies, which I actually loath.

Others adapt to newer music and in my case I'm probably one of the few 60 plus year old white males in the world whose playlists contain a significant amount of hip-hop / rap and thought the musical Hamilton was awesome. 



Happy Friday all.

This is why I say that a game needs to find their target market, and target the hell out of them

You find the people that you want in your game, that tribe, that player, and say "Ok.. this.. this is who we are selling to"

If you look at music, it's broken down into styles, some people define the style by the era, others just by the style itself, but, the people that make that music, are looking to attract the people that like that music.

Case in point, I like Heavy Metal, that ponding beat, that rush, I just love it. But I'll listen to metal from any era, if someone today started to bust out some heavy metal, I'd tune in to listen to it.

Which is funny, because, when you listen to music, it often is more than simply being able to play a song, there is also a show that goes with it, a look, a style that the musicians embrace to make a whole package for their audience.

Case in point, just to use Country, now, if Kiss, in full Makeup and Show outfits stomped on stage and started to sing "Honkeytonk Badonkadonk" I am sure all the people that showed up to watch KISS preform would have a whole lot of WTF. Equally so, I am sure if Toby Keith started to bust out "Disposable Hero's" there would also be a lot of WTF going on.

This is something MMO's also need to grasp, something the music industry has known for a long. Find your Market, and Target the hell out of them.

Even within those "categories" there are differing tastes (thank goodness). I like RPG, simulation, and city building games, but not every last one them. I also enjoy almost every kind of music, but all genres have good and bad songs for me.

Even musical groups are not "auto-loved" simply because. My favorite group is Rush. Not all of their songs get my head banging. One of my favorite musical pieces is Appalchian Spring by Aaron Copeland. It's a long suite that incorporates "Lord of the Dance" in part. Not all of Mr. Copeland's pieces hit me even remotely similarly.

I've also found some music gets more or less "impactful" when used in movies, TV shows, and even video games.

Just my wooden nickel thoughts

[edit]
Trouble with YouTube linkage. Removerd >(

That is to be expected. I like metal, but that does not mean I like every metal band ever, or every metal song, some of them suck.

As the expression goes: "They can't all be winners"

and I'll listen to a lot of various music, everything from bebop, to screamo, because, why not? What's the worst that happens, I learn I like it?

But this does not change my point, that like Music, MMO's should find their Demographic and Focus. Too often games try to be everything to everyone.

And I think the future of MMO's is going to be about focusing on a demographic, we are seeing this already with "Survival Game" like Ark, and "World Building Game" like Boundless, Realm wars like Crowfall, where as opposed to trying to make a game that has all this, they make a game that has one point of focus, for the people that want that, and that is their tribe, and all the other stuff is there to entertain their tribe.

Like having crafting in Crowfall. It's there, it's complex, it's still all about Realm Wars, and the crafting is built around that idea, that this is a Realms War game.

And while everyone that likes Realms Wars might not like Crowfall, just like everyone that likes Metal might not like Iron Maiden, but that does not change the fact that, they had their focus, they had target, and be damned everyone else, and it works.

It works great in the music industry, it tends to work really well in most marketing and arts, from Music, to Art, to Cars, to Clothing, to Toys... it's all about finding your demographic and focusing.

cameltosis

Kyleran said:

cameltosis said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

olepi said:

Awesome reply, explains so much which gets me to thinking the same concept probably applies to other forms of entertainment, be it art, movies or gaming.

To be really popular the work needs patterns which appeal the a larger target audience, in which case it might explain why MMORPGS with more simplistic patterns became the norm  over the years.

Besides having broad appeal, presumably they are easier and cheaper to create and have a better chance at a higher payout.

It's not unreasonable to say the core patterns for most games regardless of genre provide players sets of game play loops, patterns if you will, which are designed to be repeated regularly based on gamer's preferences.

Not surprising then to note hard core raiding isn't favored by the masses, the patterns while perhaps not necessarily difficult might be more complex or wearying than most players are looking for in their games.

I've often heard from folks who said they don't like MMORPGs equate their gameplay loops such as raiding, mining, market trading to being more of a second job which they definitely aren't looking for.

Underlying their statement what really is being said they find particular patterns very boring, too time consuming or are tedious and / or repetitious while not feeling very rewarding in the process.

So unfortunately for those seeking more complex MMORPGs,  experienced game development management (or music industry moguls) know games / music created around more simplistic patterns are what has and will likely continue to sell very well.

Well explains the popularity of console games, boy bands, TV sitcoms, superhero movies, fast food restaurants and female pop singers over the years and why most of them aren't very appealing to me. 

Also makes sense why games, music, or movies that I often don't care for often are repeating the same simplistic patterns which I might have even initially enjoyed now no longer hold much appeal.

You are right, you seem to have understood it perfectly :-)

What is also important though, is that our understanding changes over time. We learn the patterns, then they get boring, so we need newer, more complex patterns to keep us entertained.

In MMORPGs, this is why we need a steady progression in difficulty and group size.

Solo, easy content is the beginning of the journey, accessible to all and enjoyable to most, if only for a while. The game really then needs to provide a slow-but-steady progression as you move through the game, with hardcore raiding or pvp being the pinacle.

But, that progression is missing these days. Its typically solo, easy content, then huge jump to the complex, difficult, chaotic world of raiding and pvp. The change in patterns is too much, so it just seems far too stressful to the average player.

We need more group content, earlier in the game. We need much easier group content, so that you only need to learn the patterns of other players, and not stress about playing your own class. We need PvP in some form, earlier on, restricted to lowbies / newbies, so that you dont just get stomped by veterans.

We used to see this a bit more often in older games. Certainly, there used to be a lot more "easy" group content during the leveling process, so we could learn to be social and learn the basics of group play without worrying about complex boss strategies.

It is this concept (of on-ramping players) that makes me slightly forgiving of the mobile games industry. Whilst I hate all the games myself, mobile games are acting as an accessible entry point for some people who would never normally touch games. Eventually, some of those mobile gamers will learn the patterns of those easiest games, and then go seeking for the next level up. Eventually, some of those will reach the "peak" and join the mmorpg community :P

Mendel

Scot said:

delete5230 said:

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

NASA is only an excuse to use tax payers money to put a few orbital space stations for the rich Demarcates if needed.  Don't worry, no one gets a free ride and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer "are not" the chosen.

Remember space radiation passes through steel and metal like it's not even there. It's hostel and I don't care what Top Secret crap they have to off set that...... 500 more years ! 

Your tax $$ at work.

Living in space indefinitely would currently require something like an asteroid as a radiation shield and rotation to maintain gravity. But living on the likes of Mars or Titan would be easier long term though would still be a huge effort. My estimate of when colonists (not people in a space programme) could go is pure guesswork, the space race occurs in fits and starts. You would be talking at least 75 years from now.

75 years, minimum.  I don't know that anyone alive today will live to see meaningful permanent residences on another planet (10,000+ residences).  There's just too much technology needed to make it work.

Take speed.  Space is vast; even the nearest planets are multiple months away.  The fastest human built vessels are simply inadequate for the job.  Cut the travel time by increasing the propulsion and it might be possible.  But that technology doesn't really exist yet.  Physics is our enemy, here, and doesn't give up its domain easily.

Kyleran

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Mendel

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

delete5230

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

AlBQuirky

Mendel said:

Scot said:

delete5230 said:

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

NASA is only an excuse to use tax payers money to put a few orbital space stations for the rich Demarcates if needed.  Don't worry, no one gets a free ride and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer "are not" the chosen.

Remember space radiation passes through steel and metal like it's not even there. It's hostel and I don't care what Top Secret crap they have to off set that...... 500 more years ! 

Your tax $$ at work.

Living in space indefinitely would currently require something like an asteroid as a radiation shield and rotation to maintain gravity. But living on the likes of Mars or Titan would be easier long term though would still be a huge effort. My estimate of when colonists (not people in a space programme) could go is pure guesswork, the space race occurs in fits and starts. You would be talking at least 75 years from now.

75 years, minimum.  I don't know that anyone alive today will live to see meaningful permanent residences on another planet (10,000+ residences).  There's just too much technology needed to make it work.

Take speed.  Space is vast; even the nearest planets are multiple months away.  The fastest human built vessels are simply inadequate for the job.  Cut the travel time by increasing the propulsion and it might be possible.  But that technology doesn't really exist yet.  Physics is our enemy, here, and doesn't give up its domain easily.

Would this be the next evolution of MMOs, then? Playing WoW in space? Think about the lag!

KnightFalz

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

Absolutely. Why make a total mess of just one planet when with some ingenuity and effort we can spoil them all.

Kyleran

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

Well, there have been proposals to "take care of the homeless" as you put it, but fortunately have never seriously been considered...I hope

Scot

delete5230 said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

Why don't we take care of our homeless before we try putting our politicians in space for their safety.

Tax $$ at work.

Some people might think sending every politician to Mars was worth those tax dollars.

Scot

Ungood said:

Scot said:

delete5230 said:

Scot said:

Getting of this planet is humanities future Delete, it ensures that even if we make a total mess of things here, there will be people somewhere who will carry on our species.

NASA is only an excuse to use tax payers money to put a few orbital space stations for the rich Demarcates if needed.  Don't worry, no one gets a free ride and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer "are not" the chosen.

Remember space radiation passes through steel and metal like it's not even there. It's hostel and I don't care what Top Secret crap they have to off set that...... 500 more years ! 

Your tax $$ at work.

Living in space indefinitely would currently require something like an asteroid as a radiation shield and rotation to maintain gravity. But living on the likes of Mars or Titan would be easier long term though would still be a huge effort. My estimate of when colonists (not people in a space programme) could go is pure guesswork, the space race occurs in fits and starts. You would be talking at least 75 years from now.

Have you ever thought that if we destroy this planet we deserve to die with it?

I don't think we will destroy the Earth, it is just a precaution. But in the very long term the Earth will not be able to sustain humanity, so starting to get resources from the rest of the solar system (mainly for the space effort) and beginning manned missions to Mars prepares us for that.

TwistedSister77

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

AlBQuirky

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

That's how Anne McCaffrey got the colonists to Pern in her Dragonriders of Pern series

delete5230

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will. 

TwistedSister77

delete5230 said:

TwistedSister77 said:

You know, the predictions that the earth cannot sustain our population date back all the way to the industrial revolution.  

Those people would be completely shocked that we have 7 billion people today and did not run out of food, water, medicine...  without having constant world wars over them (I'm not saying poor people or countries aren't getting those, but that's more due to greed and politics than supply).

I agree though, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  I personally want us, like virtually everyone here to protect our environment and the creatures (the how is where we'll disagree).

At a minimum, get DNA from all past & living species to create an ark.  

I think one of the Scandinavian countries has a seed ark in a scientific bunker, of almost every plant they could get... just in case of a catastrophe.

Way off !!
Regardless of your "Industrial revolution to now analogy" that people would be amazed we self sustained........Geometric growth since then is ALARMING.

Data from UN world population:

1930  2 Billion

1974  4 Billion

1999  6 Billion

2020  7.8 Billion 

In less than 100 years 2 Billion > 7.8 Billion..... I'm deeply concerned about self sustainment in the NEXT 100 YEARS. Were on track for a 4 to 1 ratio for the next !!

I Disagree, I believe we were meant to explore and expand beyond Earth.  At least in the next 100 YEARS. World population will overcome us before then.  Worst yet more people to be self destructive along with technologies to help this process along.

Unless God intervenes were screwed, however I think God will. 

I've read the same concerns... so many times.  Some people were draconian in measures (proposed wars, limits on birth, etc )

You fail to understand the limitations of the authors foresight on technology and humans abilities to organize.  Example, agriculture yields now vs 100 years ago (1920 vs 2020) and nourishment.

But I do agree with you to reach and expand to the stars.  We are in agreement, but that is a long term not short term solution.  Do both.

Scot

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

I think for PR purposes national space agencies will look to do this the wrong way round. Before we go to Mars we should be building a factory on the Moon to help support space exploration, building as much as we can there. The asteroids would be mined and the Moon itself could provide at least a basic building material and water. It may be down to the the private space agencies to show the way here, or space programmes will continue at a snails pace.

Iselin

Scot said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

I think for PR purposes national space agencies will look to do this the wrong way round. Before we go to Mars we should be building a factory on the Moon to help support space exploration, building as much as we can there. The asteroids would be mined and the Moon itself could provide at least a basic building material and water. It may be down to the the private space agencies to show the way here, or space programmes will continue at a snails pace.

You do know that the asteroid belt is on the other side of Mars, between it and Jupiter, don't you? You pretty well need to get to Mars before you even start thinking about mining asteroids.

Abscissa15

Don't cloud the issue with facts.

Scot

Iselin said:

Scot said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

I think for PR purposes national space agencies will look to do this the wrong way round. Before we go to Mars we should be building a factory on the Moon to help support space exploration, building as much as we can there. The asteroids would be mined and the Moon itself could provide at least a basic building material and water. It may be down to the the private space agencies to show the way here, or space programmes will continue at a snails pace.

You do know that the asteroid belt is on the other side of Mars, between it and Jupiter, don't you? You pretty well need to get to Mars before you even start thinking about mining asteroids.

Indeed, if you think we should mine asteroids from Mars? It is practicable but the whole idea of doing this off Earth is to reduce the gravity cost of launches. So I think the Moon would be ideal. The question is how near the mining operations would humans need to be? If it turns out robot miners need more human hands on then Mars would be the best place for a base even if only in its orbit. What I am getting at is a manned mission to the surface of mars is not essential, but may be seen to be essential.

Ungood

I am now thinking about that other discussion about a Jupiter Brain, and the Theory that it already exists, and that it put humans on this planet because the original Human died on it's original planet after creating sentient AI, that made humanity invalid.

This theory tends to work on many levels, and many discussions, because Darwin made it clear that Every Species will find it's place within its own ecosystem where it will homogenize with it's environment, Ergo: Belong and Contribute.

This has shown to be untrue for Humans, who do not belong to any Ecosystem on this planet, and instead act as an invasive species in every region we are in.

This giving more clout to those theories. Now personally, I think if a Jupiter Brain Exists, and it did put Humanity on this planet, I am pretty sure it will not let us escape, because it either put us here to give us a place to stay and a second chance to be viable, or it put us here to contain us. In both cases, leaving is not really going to be an option.

Iselin

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Scot said:

Mendel said:

Kyleran said:

If anyone is interested in what the "experts" are working on to mitigate the affects of radiation on humans in space here's a good short summary by NASA on the subject.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/real-martians-how-to-protect-astronauts-from-space-radiation-on-mars

Thanks for that link.  Radiation is a big issue, but I'm equally concerned about how we get materials in place to actually implement any solution.  Logistics and budget are also big hurdles to overcome.

I think for PR purposes national space agencies will look to do this the wrong way round. Before we go to Mars we should be building a factory on the Moon to help support space exploration, building as much as we can there. The asteroids would be mined and the Moon itself could provide at least a basic building material and water. It may be down to the the private space agencies to show the way here, or space programmes will continue at a snails pace.

You do know that the asteroid belt is on the other side of Mars, between it and Jupiter, don't you? You pretty well need to get to Mars before you even start thinking about mining asteroids.

Indeed, if you think we should mine asteroids from Mars? It is practicable but the whole idea of doing this off Earth is to reduce the gravity cost of launches. So I think the Moon would be ideal. The question is how near the mining operations would humans need to be? If it turns out robot miners need more human hands on then Mars would be the best place for a base even if only in its orbit. What I am getting at is a manned mission to the surface of mars is not essential, but may be seen to be essential.

I think the books and TV series The Expanse, have the sense of how it will happen if it happens: a lot of grunt work by space construction workers and miners and I think they will prefer a planetary gravity well even if it's Mars' 0.35 G to call home instead of stations with simulated rotational gravity.

But it's also way off in the future and, to get back on topic, it'll need good management to get us there