Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Space.com)   Get your ass to Mars. This may be one reality show subby would sign up for   (space.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Red Planet  
•       •       •

6993 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 8:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-10 09:42:06 AM  

jrw8778: Yeah I was reading about this, and it occurred to me that they talk a lot about sending people to Mars, but once you're there, there's no talk about coming home.


You're trying out to be a colonist, not a tourist.
 
2013-01-10 09:49:48 AM  

miss diminutive: Prevailing Wind: miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.

VERY TALL KIDS!

With bone densities of birds.


I suspect that bone density would be the least of your worries. Microgravity experiments in the 70's showed that rats impregnated in normal gravity could come to term and give birth in space, however conceptions that took place in space were inviable. Recent work done in Japan suggests that in in microgravity there are problems with establishing the embryonic axis which eventually inhibits blastocyst formation.

Of course Mars' gravity may be enough to avoid such problems.
 
2013-01-10 09:55:30 AM  

braedan: You don't get voted off so much as airlock'd.


www.cyberpunkreview.com

I'm ok with this. Imagine Justin Beiber going first.
 
2013-01-10 09:58:18 AM  

miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.


I hope so. Because space sex.
 
2013-01-10 09:59:01 AM  

Gabrielmot: If this was a serious scientific expedition, we'd see them run trials on all people who want to go. They'd make the same setup here and put all of the contestants in a similar habitat with no contact to the outside world for an entire year or two at least to see what happened.


I take it you didn't read TFA. The selection and training process is planned to take 8 years, of which I have to assume that some part will be spent in isolation.
 
2013-01-10 10:07:48 AM  
The company is just an attention whore.

Nobody is going to be sent to Mars. Not only is it a one-way trip, but resupplying four humans for the rest of their natural lives will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Solar might help a little probe out, but four humans will require the full gamut of power sources - probably nuclear, solar, and wind. We haven't found any power sources to tap into on that distant rock. And the large annual resupply launches - pray one doesn't blow up or get lost on the way. Yeah, the humans should plan on a horrible death early.

A good trial run would be to have some people live at the south pole for 4-5 years continuously. Currently there is a large facility and people come and go all the time. Maybe we should try sticking four people in that facility and abandon them completely - just drop in some supplies once a year. Then we will see how that works out.

/Redrum Redrum
 
2013-01-10 10:08:56 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 'Dammit Cohagen, gib de peeple de aiyah.'


"fark 'em!"
 
2013-01-10 10:16:12 AM  

miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.


"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids... In fact, it's cold as hell. And there's no one there to raise them, if you did."

/really, I'm the first?
 
2013-01-10 10:16:22 AM  
Ill do it! how many of you do I have to kill? And if I die there will be statues and schools of me everywhere.
 
2013-01-10 10:18:42 AM  

washington-babylon: miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.

"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids... In fact, it's cold as hell. And there's no one there to raise them, if you did."

/really, I'm the first?


Dammit!
 
2013-01-10 10:19:33 AM  

jrw8778: Yeah I was reading about this, and it occurred to me that they talk a lot about sending people to Mars, but once you're there, there's no talk about coming home. That's a little disconcerting.


There isn't. They're doing it the right way--a colonization mission. It's too small, though.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Is it just me or is this completely unrealistic due to costs and will never happen (at least not this project and by the 2023 timeframe)? Not to mention - wouldn't you need to go deep underground on Mars, or else have like a meter of lead between you and an atmosphere filled with deadly radiation?


Yeah, the chance that a manned bird will fly is clearly zero.

rwfan: As for budgets IIRC the estimated costs of getting a crew to Mars and back works out to be the take of the top 10 or 15 grossing movies. These guys aren't planning on bringing anyone back but I suspect keeping people alive on Mars would be more expensive than bringing them back. So I agree that these guys are not likely to succeed in pulling together enough money to succeed but I think their chances are larger than infinitesimal. Another thing is after you have been sitting on Mars staring at red dust for a few months you would probably wish you were dead.


To keep a few people alive is expensive, to keep many is not--you don't keep them alive, you ship enough stuff that they can keep themselves alive.

Anyway, consider something that came up in the Apollo program--the hardest part of the mission was getting them home. Until they realized they could leave their return fuel/supplies in lunar orbit they simply couldn't make the numbers work well. (If you want to put the same real payload on the moon without leaving stuff in orbit you end up having to use two Saturn Vs to launch it instead of one!) They were facing Kennedy's deadline and were looking at a way of meeting the spirit of the goal: Mission #1 is unmanned, it's carrying 5 years of supplies. Mission #2 has a crew of one but no return stage. NASA gets an explorer on the moon for 5 years and by then either figures out how to get him home or at least can send up another supply rocket (something that they would have already succeeded at before the manned launch.)

Note the numbers: The same booster that can round-trip 3 men for a few days can supply one man for 5 years. Mars has similar delta-v requirements to get there (remember, Mars has an atmosphere. You don't have to match velocities, you just need to get to the right point in space) but a much higher delta-v requirement to get home. This makes the balance shift even more to sending supplies instead of a return stage.
 
2013-01-10 10:21:57 AM  

way south: If I can take my guns and my dogs then hell yea.
Pick me up on the way to the airport.

/otherwise I'll leave colonization to the more adventurous.
/or maybe not, I'd still be damn tempted.
/launch costs are dropping so its an unrealistic idea that's becoming more feasible every year.


If they make you take a robot dog, make sure the switch on the back is set to "exploration companion", rather than "vicious slaughterer of anything that moves". Scientists think that kind of shiat is hilarious.
 
2013-01-10 10:25:05 AM  
Best way to troll this for our /snicker "best and brightest"...

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-10 10:25:28 AM  

Farce-Side: SO...who wants to help fund my plan to kill a group of people gullible enough to volunteer to be killed in the name of science? It'll be groundbreaking, and may or may not involve killing them slowly by way of oxygen deprivation and radiation poisoning.


Gotta die of something. May as well be for science.

Sign me up.
 
2013-01-10 10:29:56 AM  
I'd watch various people being launched into the sun.
 
2013-01-10 10:31:40 AM  

washington-babylon: miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.

"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids... In fact, it's cold as hell. And there's no one there to raise them, if you did."

/really, I'm the first?


Ummm...
 
2013-01-10 10:34:12 AM  

miss diminutive: washington-babylon: miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.

"Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids... In fact, it's cold as hell. And there's no one there to raise them, if you did."

/really, I'm the first?

Ummm...


Dammit!
 
2013-01-10 10:34:20 AM  
They should send monkeys first.
 
2013-01-10 10:37:09 AM  

jrw8778: Yeah I was reading about this, and it occurred to me that they talk a lot about sending people to Mars, but once you're there, there's no talk about coming home. That's a little disconcerting.


No, it's called colonizing. Pioneers have never expected to return home. Explorers come home (see Apollo). You can send ten times as many colonists as explorers for the same money and equipment. However, the timeline does provide for returns, but not for a decade or more.
 
2013-01-10 10:38:53 AM  

Deep Contact: They should send monkeys first.


Or relocate GITMO..
 
2013-01-10 10:41:53 AM  
This mission is Farnsworth-approved.
www.cavemancircus.com
 
2013-01-10 10:44:50 AM  

jrw8778: Yeah I was reading about this, and it occurred to me that they talk a lot about sending people to Mars, but once you're there, there's no talk about coming home. That's a little disconcerting.


I'd go, even if it was one-way.
 
2013-01-10 10:48:27 AM  

AmazinTim: This mission is Farnsworth-approved.
[www.cavemancircus.com image 500x282]


Now is your chance to leave.
 
2013-01-10 10:49:07 AM  
As much of a fan of the idea as I am - only because it would be cool to see people step foot on another planet in my lifetime - I don't really see the point.

Mars is a large, cold, lifeless rock. Having actual people there won't help us learn anything more than the probes we have poking around there now. In other words, we wouldn't learn much more than that we could do it.

Anyone who is planning on sitting in a spaceship for 2 years (approximate travel time by today's technology), then landing and being confined to a small box for the rest of their lives, is probably too insane to be trusted with anything worthwhile anyway.

And what about the VanAllen belt? That's the only thing protecting this planet from the suns cosmic rays. Mars has no magnetism, therefore no equivalent belts. So how do they plan on sheilding the people from the suns rays?


In the end, I think it would be more practical to put a colony on the moon. That, to me, doesn't seem much more complex than the ISS that we are currently flying around on.
 
2013-01-10 10:51:27 AM  

Farce-Side: SO...who wants to help fund my plan to kill a group of people gullible enough to volunteer to be killed in the name of science? It'll be groundbreaking, and may or may not involve killing them slowly by way of oxygen deprivation and radiation poisoning.


I'm sure there will be plenty of washed up reality stars who want to rekindle their 15 minutes of fame who would volunteer........sadly though then they'd get their names listed as something useful like an astronaut instead of just a waste of space.
 
2013-01-10 10:54:43 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: way south: If I can take my guns and my dogs then hell yea.
Pick me up on the way to the airport.

/otherwise I'll leave colonization to the more adventurous.
/or maybe not, I'd still be damn tempted.
/launch costs are dropping so its an unrealistic idea that's becoming more feasible every year.

it's called the "Red Planet" not the "Redneck" planet...

they don't let you take Klan outfits or bibles either apparently.

/sad for you


So having a dog makes you a racist now?
You sound like a pathetic "cat person".

born_yesterday: If they make you take a robot dog, make sure the switch on the back is set to "exploration companion", rather than "vicious slaughterer of anything that moves". Scientists think that kind of shiat is hilarious.


Its their own damn fault for not labeling the buttons clearly.

/I thought that was the "wait here till I get back" setting.
 
2013-01-10 10:56:25 AM  

miss diminutive: Prevailing Wind: miss diminutive: I wonder if they'll sterilize the colonists. Giving birth on a planet with only 1/4th Earth gravity would have some pretty serious consequences, I would think.

VERY TALL KIDS!

With bone densities of birds.


So, Turians?
 
2013-01-10 10:56:39 AM  
thumbs.imagekind.com

sad that there were no KSR references yet
 
2013-01-10 10:58:23 AM  

Loren: Note the numbers: The same booster that can round-trip 3 men for a few days can supply one man for 5 years.


I doubt that claim but assuming it's true it supports my point. It's cheaper to send a few people to Mars and get them back then to start a colony on Mars. Instead of one rocket for 3 people you need two for one person just to live for five years. To create something sustainable you need to send not only food and energy supplies for at least a couple of years you need living quarters, structures to grow food, transportation equipment, equipment to manufacture and build and you need far more than 3 people. Thinking about it, the costs must be orders of magnitude more that a manned return mission.
 
2013-01-10 10:58:57 AM  
Why?
 
2013-01-10 10:59:23 AM  
The Zhti Ti Kofft won't tolerate humans on their soil! Read more.
http://www.uncoveror.com/nomars.htm
 
2013-01-10 11:11:10 AM  

Barnstormer: "There are no plans to return the pioneers to Earth."

There are so many people I would "volunteer" to do this.


The Marching Morons. (A story by CM Kornbluth)
 
2013-01-10 11:11:39 AM  
I'll be wary if there's a guy named Benny

/also, I'd like to volunteer for the mission, once I get my mars motorcycle ready
 
2013-01-10 11:13:05 AM  
I think it is entirely possible we could send a colonization mission to mars in the next 20-30 years. There are serious people who think they can get it done, they are working on the technical and financial challenges. The guys involved in the story from the article are not them. They have no plan for funding, and don't even acknowledge the technical hurdles. I'm pretty sure at this point that the Mars One project is just a scam to trick gullible people into participating in a reality television show that will occur entirely on this planet.
 
2013-01-10 11:14:45 AM  
I wonder how far my ejaculate could travel in zero gravity...
 
2013-01-10 11:14:54 AM  
www.1969dchsreunion.com
 
2013-01-10 11:15:00 AM  

starsrift: I think I would pass the selection criteria. Three years ago, I would've jumped at this.

But now I see Mars as nothing but a barren dustball. I don't see the point of this. "Curiousity" is insufficient - we can map and record every feature of Mars. This seems like throwing four humans on a one-way trip for nothing but the same reasons to hit a golf ball around on the moon.

There's nothing there, and we don't yet have the technology to make anything there that's more meaningful than an undersea base in our own oceans - and it would be less meaningful, because there are tons of scientific possibilities in our oceans! Mars is just a dead rock with a razor's edge of atmo.


Can it be terraformed the slow way (plants and water)?
 
2013-01-10 11:20:04 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: starsrift: I think I would pass the selection criteria. Three years ago, I would've jumped at this.

But now I see Mars as nothing but a barren dustball. I don't see the point of this. "Curiousity" is insufficient - we can map and record every feature of Mars. This seems like throwing four humans on a one-way trip for nothing but the same reasons to hit a golf ball around on the moon.

There's nothing there, and we don't yet have the technology to make anything there that's more meaningful than an undersea base in our own oceans - and it would be less meaningful, because there are tons of scientific possibilities in our oceans! Mars is just a dead rock with a razor's edge of atmo.

Can it be terraformed the slow way (plants and water)?


Can it? I don't think it can. Further analysis of the polar cap may prove otherwise, but it would seem to me that if your watertable is already so low that most of the water is beneath the surface, where are you going to get your water from to do it in the slow way? Finding an ice asteroid or seven and flinging them down at the surface seems the most logical method.
 
2013-01-10 11:20:37 AM  

drongozone: A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!


Isn't that the info they gave the pilgrims and the Roanoke people? With no return, no re-supply, nothing to live on, and nothing to breathe, it's suicide with a spacecraft.
 
2013-01-10 11:29:28 AM  

durbnpoisn: As much of a fan of the idea as I am - only because it would be cool to see people step foot on another planet in my lifetime - I don't really see the point.

Mars is a large, cold, lifeless rock. Having actual people there won't help us learn anything more than the probes we have poking around there now. In other words, we wouldn't learn much more than that we could do it.

Anyone who is planning on sitting in a spaceship for 2 years (approximate travel time by today's technology), then landing and being confined to a small box for the rest of their lives, is probably too insane to be trusted with anything worthwhile anyway.

And what about the VanAllen belt? That's the only thing protecting this planet from the suns cosmic rays. Mars has no magnetism, therefore no equivalent belts. So how do they plan on sheilding the people from the suns rays?


In the end, I think it would be more practical to put a colony on the moon. That, to me, doesn't seem much more complex than the ISS that we are currently flying around on.


Not really a huge problem. Mars does not have a planetary magnetic field but it does have the "fossil" remnants of one that manifest as magnetic bands. By settling in one of those bands, and covering the habitations with several centimetres of soil the radiation levels would be earth normal. Environmental suits with added shielding would be needed for outside work and protocols would need to be established to limit exposure, but again it's managable.
 
2013-01-10 11:31:14 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: starsrift: I think I would pass the selection criteria. Three years ago, I would've jumped at this.

But now I see Mars as nothing but a barren dustball. I don't see the point of this. "Curiousity" is insufficient - we can map and record every feature of Mars. This seems like throwing four humans on a one-way trip for nothing but the same reasons to hit a golf ball around on the moon.

There's nothing there, and we don't yet have the technology to make anything there that's more meaningful than an undersea base in our own oceans - and it would be less meaningful, because there are tons of scientific possibilities in our oceans! Mars is just a dead rock with a razor's edge of atmo.

Can it be terraformed the slow way (plants and water)?


You would need to do some work first. The atmosphere is so thin and the gravity so much less than Earth's the atmospheric pressure is below the triple point of water. So liquid water pretty quickly boils away or freezes. You would have to build up the atmosphere first, after that find a way to trap enough sunlight to heat it up and after that would be the question of whether plants that have evolved to survive in Earth's atmosphere could survive in Mars' (which would be different)
 
2013-01-10 11:36:00 AM  

Mike_1962: durbnpoisn: As much of a fan of the idea as I am - only because it would be cool to see people step foot on another planet in my lifetime - I don't really see the point.

Mars is a large, cold, lifeless rock. Having actual people there won't help us learn anything more than the probes we have poking around there now. In other words, we wouldn't learn much more than that we could do it.

Anyone who is planning on sitting in a spaceship for 2 years (approximate travel time by today's technology), then landing and being confined to a small box for the rest of their lives, is probably too insane to be trusted with anything worthwhile anyway.

And what about the VanAllen belt? That's the only thing protecting this planet from the suns cosmic rays. Mars has no magnetism, therefore no equivalent belts. So how do they plan on sheilding the people from the suns rays?


In the end, I think it would be more practical to put a colony on the moon. That, to me, doesn't seem much more complex than the ISS that we are currently flying around on.

Not really a huge problem. Mars does not have a planetary magnetic field but it does have the "fossil" remnants of one that manifest as magnetic bands. By settling in one of those bands, and covering the habitations with several centimetres of soil the radiation levels would be earth normal. Environmental suits with added shielding would be needed for outside work and protocols would need to be established to limit exposure, but again it's managable.


Wouldn't the simple solution be to dig a hole to live in and do work on the surface at night? Still gotta worry about cosmic rays from deep space, but those are comparatively rare and everything from the sun should be shielded by the planet.
 
2013-01-10 11:39:21 AM  

Monty845: Mike_1962: durbnpoisn: As much of a fan of the idea as I am - only because it would be cool to see people step foot on another planet in my lifetime - I don't really see the point.

Mars is a large, cold, lifeless rock. Having actual people there won't help us learn anything more than the probes we have poking around there now. In other words, we wouldn't learn much more than that we could do it.

Anyone who is planning on sitting in a spaceship for 2 years (approximate travel time by today's technology), then landing and being confined to a small box for the rest of their lives, is probably too insane to be trusted with anything worthwhile anyway.

And what about the VanAllen belt? That's the only thing protecting this planet from the suns cosmic rays. Mars has no magnetism, therefore no equivalent belts. So how do they plan on sheilding the people from the suns rays?


In the end, I think it would be more practical to put a colony on the moon. That, to me, doesn't seem much more complex than the ISS that we are currently flying around on.

Not really a huge problem. Mars does not have a planetary magnetic field but it does have the "fossil" remnants of one that manifest as magnetic bands. By settling in one of those bands, and covering the habitations with several centimetres of soil the radiation levels would be earth normal. Environmental suits with added shielding would be needed for outside work and protocols would need to be established to limit exposure, but again it's managable.

Wouldn't the simple solution be to dig a hole to live in and do work on the surface at night? Still gotta worry about cosmic rays from deep space, but those are comparatively rare and everything from the sun should be shielded by the planet.


Yeah, that would work too.
 
2013-01-10 11:43:40 AM  

Monty845: Wouldn't the simple solution be to dig a hole to live in and do work on the surface at night? Still gotta worry about cosmic rays from deep space, but those are comparatively rare and everything from the sun should be shielded by the planet.


At the equator, Martian night drops the temp to -100'F.

That's not really doable.
 
2013-01-10 11:49:38 AM  

Monty845: Wouldn't the simple solution be to dig a hole to live in and do work on the surface at night? Still gotta worry about cosmic rays from deep space, but those are comparatively rare and everything from the sun should be shielded by the planet.


Radiation levels at the Martian surface appear to be roughly similar to those experienced by astronauts in low-Earth orbit, NASA's Mars rover Curiosity has found.

You probably only need to be in the hole when a solar flare hits
 
2013-01-10 12:00:51 PM  

starsrift: Monty845: Wouldn't the simple solution be to dig a hole to live in and do work on the surface at night? Still gotta worry about cosmic rays from deep space, but those are comparatively rare and everything from the sun should be shielded by the planet.

At the equator, Martian night drops the temp to -100'F.

That's not really doable.


Given how thin the martian atmosphere is, wouldn't you mainly be facing heat loss from radiation rather then by conduction? In which case your no worse off then someone doing a space walk right?
 
2013-01-10 12:05:01 PM  

drongozone: A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!


*pull up collar, banks flying car past Coke billboard*

"If Off world is so great,..."


"Bryant: They jumped a shuttle off-world, killed the crew and passengers. We found the shuttle drifting off the coast two weeks ago, so we know they're around.
Deckard: Embarrassing.
Bryant: No sir. Not embarrassing, because no one's ever going to find out they're down here. 'Cause you're gonna spot 'em and you're gonna air 'em out!
Deckard: I don't work here anymore. Give it to Holden. He's good.
Bryant: I did. He can breathe okay, as long as nobody unplugs him. "
 
2013-01-10 12:10:42 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: 'Dammit Cohagen, gib de peeple de aiyah.'


I larfed.
 
2013-01-10 12:17:52 PM  
Of course the radiation and loneliness issues have already been solved
images.nymag.com
 
2013-01-10 12:24:06 PM  
If they're gonna have telepathic dragons and the charter clearly states I get to knock up 3 different women, then sign me the fark up!
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report