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 38
    More: Cool, Red Planet  
•       •       •

6964 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2013 at 8:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-10 08:42:57 AM
3 votes:
It's a one way trip. We should send Eddie Money and Honey Boo Boo.
2013-01-10 11:13:05 AM
2 votes:
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 09:15:19 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-10 08:38:07 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-10 01:17:38 PM
1 votes:
Wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing as making a biodome of sorts?

That is, just putting everything underground won't solve anything if it's not a sealed environment.
2013-01-10 12:05:01 PM
1 votes:

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 12:00:51 PM
1 votes:

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 11:43:40 AM
1 votes:

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 11:36:00 AM
1 votes:

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 11:29:28 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:49:07 AM
1 votes:
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 10:37:09 AM
1 votes:

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 10:19:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:48 AM
1 votes:
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 09:55:30 AM
1 votes:

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 09:49:48 AM
1 votes:

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 09:42:06 AM
1 votes:

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 09:33:15 AM
1 votes:

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.


Good idea.  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.
2013-01-10 09:31:52 AM
1 votes:
What ever happened to "Let's build a lunar base and have people live there first?" Don't you have to crawl before you can run all over the solar system?
2013-01-10 09:24:21 AM
1 votes:
In before QA derp.

I signed up for this probably a year or so ago. I'm assuming the eight-year training regimen will take care of the basic requirements for survival. Personally, I'm not fussed in the least that it's a one-way trip - I want off of this ride we call Earth, everyone is bugnuts crazy and shooting each other.
2013-01-10 09:12:20 AM
1 votes:
Volunteers from Roanoke strangely absent.
2013-01-10 09:10:21 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Yeah, Mars will probably be colonized the same way Australia was.
2013-01-10 09:08:19 AM
1 votes:
You know, barring the obvious scientific difficulties with this idea... What bothers me is you are going to send a group of people who barely know each other to a planet where they can really only hang out in the structures you built and go outside for only short amounts of time.

Where would food, air, water, etc. come from? What about entertainment? You can't easily get a good internet connection there, and you'd have no movie theatre. No advanced medical equipment if something went wrong. No mining equipment to produce more structures and habitats...

This is closer to creating a prison in the middle of the desert and giving everyone there a life sentence. -They'd go crazy without a ton of life's comforts.

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.

At best this is a marketing gimmick to get attention and money for a project that even *if* it takes off will end up with a gruesome end.

That being said, I too would like to help colonize another planet. But a planet that on its own could easily support *human* life so I could walk outside and breathe in the fresh air.
2013-01-10 09:06:22 AM
1 votes:
We're not even a planetary society yet. How the fark are we supposed to jump to inter-planetary status before? God forbid Russia collonize Mars, cause if they do, Amurica will just have to blow it up from Titan.

/send Snookie, G-dubya, and The Rolling Stones
//second though, we'll keep the stones. they have the secrets to immortality
2013-01-10 09:06:01 AM
1 votes:

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?


curiosity-rover-mars-radiation-levels-safe-for-humans

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.
2013-01-10 09:00:39 AM
1 votes:
Its a one-way trip everyone.
2013-01-10 08:57:33 AM
1 votes:
A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!
2013-01-10 08:56:09 AM
1 votes:
I volunteer for the third wave colonization...
2013-01-10 08:50:12 AM
1 votes:
In the future, we will no longer create artistic masterpieces, make amazing scientific discoveries, unlock the secrets of the universe, or even learn to play the banjo.

We'll just watch reality TV shows about people pretending to do those things while being catty to each other.
2013-01-10 08:49:47 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-10 08:46:01 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-10 08:44:21 AM
1 votes:
Not going unless there are three breasted hookers there.
2013-01-10 08:43:54 AM
1 votes:
Can we send Fred Phelps?
2013-01-10 08:43:22 AM
1 votes:
It's too bad VH1 isn't in charge of this. Imagine...an entire planet colonized by drunken sluts.
2013-01-10 08:39:04 AM
1 votes:
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?
2013-01-10 08:36:30 AM
1 votes:
You don't get voted off so much as airlock'd.
2013-01-10 08:33:43 AM
1 votes:
'Dammit Cohagen, gib de peeple de aiyah.'
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report