posted
In some TNG episode, Picard explained human colonization by saying that the colonists had sought "a new way of life" or something. This could imply that they Mars and other colonies are still Earth and/ or Fed colonies but are allowed to come up with there own way of governing themselves as long as it falls within Federation law. They establish their own style of life and economy, etc. This could explain the Martian Declarations mentioned in TOS.
posted
It's especially strange that the colonization of Mars is so late when you consider that, in the Trek universe, human spaceflight advanced much more quickly than in reality. Perhaps they were getting ready to colonize when Cochrane invented the warp drive, and then, since they could get so far away, they turned their focus to other star systems. It wasn't until later that someone said "Hey, we've got a perfectly good plabet right here; how's about we finish colonizing it?!"
------------------ "I think you people have proven something to the world: that a half a million kids can get together and have three days of fun and music� and have nothing but fun and music." -Max Yasgur; Woodstock, NY; August, 1969
posted
Also, with that perfectly good class M planet in the Alpha Centauri system, terraforming ideas would have been nixed.
notice in relativity and lifesigns - Mars hasn't been 'Terraformed'.
So maybe there was an adversion to destroying the original Martian conditions - until it was CERTAIN there was no evidence of life - or previous forms of life.
maybe then they gave up and people just started building colonies there - but not terraforming.
of course the moon hadn't any colonies in 2063 either.
------------------ "The story..." Londo says, "is not over yet. The story is never over."
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Here's my take, which will be as usual completely ignored. . . why is there always this 'all-or-nothing' scenario? Mars was a colony, Mars was independent, Mars rebelled and was crushed. . . couldn't the declaration simply have made Mars a nation of Earth? This would give a sense of unity despite the distances, and lead to the very principles that bind the Federation together.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the canon "facts" that Mars wasn't colonized until 2104 and that there were no colonies on the moon in 2063 are just further examples of the current Star Trek producers not being very knowledgeable about Trek history. These "facts" don't seem very logical. Remember that by the time of the Eugenics War Earth was using sleeper ships. This suggests that some attempts at outer interplanetary or perhaps even interstellar travel were being made in our recent past. I still think that any attempts at further exploration must start from the moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt.
------------------ When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
*O_o at suggest of Ron Moore not being up on Trek history*
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
Captain Kirk gives the following sequence- Moon (Apollo) Mars Stars
In reality, for 1960's, the plan was this- Moon (Apollo) Space Station around Earth Moon Bases Mars This was to have begun in the 1970's. I personnally believe that human beings, sadly, will never leave the Earth-Moon system for the simple reason that the pressures of a growing, older, and poorer population will have on the available resources.
Someday those half-blind idiots running things will realize that the resources are out there for the taking, if only one makes the initial investment to get there.
------------------ 'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 28, 1999).]
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Riker's Comment in ST:FC implies that the Moon had been terraformed when the technology was possible. As for Mars, perhaps there were several conditions that made terraforming out of the question. I believe that not all colonies are on planets terraformed by the Federation.
------------------ I can resist anything....... Except Temptation
posted
The moon has not been terraformed. There is a big bubble or bubbles on it. The whiney chick in Valiant DS9 said so.
I would suggest also that a planet as far away from a star like Sol could never be terraformed anyway. You can't bring the planet closer to the sun by terraforming it. It would simply always be way too cold.
posted
It's a matter of compensation. You can make up for the greater distance by adding more greenhouse gases, to ensure the planet keeps what heat it gets.
------------------ "Like I told you, you are concentric in your form. When it's cold you've got yourself to keep you warm." -- John Linnell
posted
Correct, Aban -- I was just going to mention that Valiant scene. I believe that the Moon wasn't terraformed, just turned into a golf course with tents .
As for the whole question of terraforming: I think that it's still an infant technology. Look at the TNG ep 'Home Soils' (I think that's it's name). They had techies living and breathing their work on that planet, and really didn't have mush to show for it. And what about O'Briens line in 'Past Tense, Part I' about the disappearance of the Venus terraforming station? I mean, they're only as far as Venus? For crying out loud, that would have been one of the first planets I would've terraformed, not some obscure rock in some other system.
Also, Venus has an atmosphere, where the Moon most definitely does not. This may have serious implications on the feasability of actually attempting terraforming in the first place.
AND Mars (which did have a fairly tenuous atmosphere, last time I checked) would already have been planted with those poxy domes and buildings (by the 2103 colonists, and with eff-all help from NASA) before the notion of terraforming became a technological possibility. My way of thinking is that terraforming would have damaged those buildings, or at the very least they would have interfered with the terraforming process.
Oh, and I think Cochrane was a Vulcan. I've always thought their eyes were too far apart for them to be trusted . *gibbers like a mad fish* *I can type 'terraforming' a lot faster now too*
------------------ "Fire, Fire!" said Mrs O'Dwyer. "Where, where?" said Mrs O'Hare. "Down in the town." said Mrs Brown. "Lord bless us and save us" said old Mrs Davis. "I never knew a herring was a fish."
posted
Gaseous Anomaly: I don't think Venus is a good choice for terraforming. Too hot, too dense and too poisonous atmosphere. A bad idea for the start of a new technology. The "Home Soil" planet could have been more comfortable from the very beginning. Mars would be the only possible terraforming project in our solar system, while the moon is too small, the gravity too low and an atmosphere cannot be held.
BTW, the Genesis device was so much more powerful than the primitive technology in "Home Soil". It's hard to find an explanation why Genesis was abandoned (apart from the Klingons' demands).
As for Mars, I'm pretty sure that it's not an independent member planet. For what we have seen in "Lifesigns" and "Relativity" it's perhaps Class K (something like a desert planet). The moon is nothing but a big space station. What population did Riker mention, 20 million or 50 million? Is it correct there was a lake (probably beneath a dome)?
.
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
