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.

(Daily Mail)   Buzz Aldrin says the first men to land on Mars should just stay in that studio   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 29
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2622 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jul 2014 at 11:20 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-10 10:00:49 AM
You jest, but I bet we could just fund a mission to Mars with a reality show.

It can even star the Kardashians, maybe they 'accidentally' get 'sucked out of an airlock'.
 
2014-07-10 10:10:13 AM
Because we will plan, we will construct from the moon of Mars, over a period of six to seven years, the landing of different objects at the landing site that will be brought together to form a complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the moon.

And what happens when (not if) one or more of those objects is crashed and unusable?   No - let's start with a habitat on the moon first, where people can come and go.  As practice.  Only when we understand the issues in a real way can we even think about a manned Mars mission.

Also - I always thought the most important part of Kennedy's mandate was the "and return him safely to earth" clause.  It betokens a basic respect for life and the idea that it is unthinkable to just leave someone stranded.  When did we lose that?
 
2014-07-10 11:19:50 AM
Good ol' Buzz knows how to deal with denialists
 
2014-07-10 11:31:30 AM
Buzz Aldrin ... admits... the moon landings were fake
 
2014-07-10 11:41:37 AM
Couldnt Buzz just punch someone to Mars? Think of the cost savings!
 
2014-07-10 11:55:50 AM
i392.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-10 11:58:40 AM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Good ol' Buzz knows how to deal with denialists


So many gaming references I could use with that...

Super Smash Brothers:
Aldrin Punch!

Pokemon:
Buzz Aldrin uses Hyper Punch
Its Super Effective
Conspiracy Theorist Faints!

Final Fantasy (Any JRPG)
Buzz Aldrin (Monk Class) Attacks Conspiracy Theorist
99999
OverKill
Buzz Aldrin gets 999 XP
Fire Ring
5821 Gil
 
2014-07-10 12:05:14 PM
You gotta wonder about people who buy into moon landing denialism.

Giant damn rocket launches that couldn't be faked with that era's special effects.
Being able to see sputnik with the naked eye years ahead of time.
All the modern tech that actually depends on space travel, like satellite TV.

They just take all that and obsess over missing stars, as if NO ONE would think to fake them.  It's weird.
 
2014-07-10 12:25:48 PM
that'll take a piece of tax payer change to put men on mars.   it certainly won't come from any of our Private Sector Friends.
 
2014-07-10 12:39:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Because we will plan, we will construct from the moon of Mars, over a period of six to seven years, the landing of different objects at the landing site that will be brought together to form a complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the moon.

And what happens when (not if) one or more of those objects is crashed and unusable?   No - let's start with a habitat on the moon first, where people can come and go.  As practice.  Only when we understand the issues in a real way can we even think about a manned Mars mission.

Also - I always thought the most important part of Kennedy's mandate was the "and return him safely to earth" clause.  It betokens a basic respect for life and the idea that it is unthinkable to just leave someone stranded.  When did we lose that?




They'll just pull funding after a few trips.
The problem with exploration is that the political will dries up as soon as anything vote worthy is achieved. Going to the moon in a non committal way gave the leadership an easy excuse to stop as soon as they felt our superiority over Russia was proven.

One way mars is a sensible move. Because it says we aren't just going to visit, plant a flag, and let some earth politician read a speech.
We're staying. We're colonizing. We're using the mass of that return ship to setup shop.
So earth can either double up on the supply drops or watch their best and brightest starve inside a frozen tomb, bodies never to be recovered.

The latter, if nothing else, would shame the sitting government out of office for its incompetence. Being unable to do things previous administrations did easily.

/Of course that risk is probably why they'd never allow a one way trip.
/but then there's Spacex, trying to go it alone...
 
2014-07-10 01:03:51 PM
Not sure a colony will work if you only send men.
 
2014-07-10 01:17:58 PM
I use the moon landings as a litmus test for if someone is even remotely worth talking to. Someone naysaying 9/11, or the Kennedy assassination, or anti-vax, sure I'll cut some of those people a little slack for the most part. But the second anyone makes the "Well, were you THERE to see them land on the moon?" or anything like that, or they mention any of the near innumerable easily defeated "evidence" of the moon landings not having happened, I just turn my back and walk away.

Not worth the effort. Means I'm dealing with a moron.
 
2014-07-10 01:30:25 PM

ikanreed: They just take all that and obsess over missing stars, as if NO ONE would think to fake them.  It's weird.


I love that particular one.  Yeah genius you know better than NASA what the surface of the moon would look like.  I mean think about it, even if it were faked I'm pretty sure NASA would know better than some guy what to put in the fake footage.  It's like claiming that the 97% of peer reviewed journals on some random subject that agree with each other and were written and reviewed by scientists who have advanced degrees are wrong when you got a D in high school math.....
 
2014-07-10 01:40:24 PM
Isn't it already basically an accepted prospect that we're not coming back from that first one? I mean, we had nearly 120,000 people sign up for a suicide mission - they're not going to have a shortage of takers.

//that being said, someone named "phillip j fry" needs to be on that mission, just for the low-hanging fruit...
 
2014-07-10 02:16:56 PM

Somaticasual: Isn't it already basically an accepted prospect that we're not coming back from that first one? I mean, we had nearly 120,000 people sign up for a suicide mission - they're not going to have a shortage of takers.

//that being said, someone named "phillip j fry" needs to be on that mission, just for the low-hanging fruit...




We had people ready to go to the Moon when that was a one way trip.
The problem isn't finding applicants, it's convincing the missions backers that this is more than just an expensive suicide machine. Making the step from short term death to long term colonization (with a non zero chance of death) adds a touch of class to what is basically a funding trap.

As was said above, what sold politicians on the moon was the idea of two way access.
They won't send a dime our way for mars until they know they can pull the plug after that first flag is planted.
 
2014-07-10 03:19:40 PM
So they wrote a newspaper article about a Reddit thread?
 
2014-07-10 03:24:12 PM
Here's the problem with a permanent Mars colony:

Everything we humans need to survive is here on Earth. Gravity, air, water, food, heat... everything. Mars doesn't actually have a sufficient amount of ANYTHING that we need to live, so we'll have to take everything with us. We would have to build an exact replica of Earth conditions on Mars and have it be self-sustaining and perpetually-sustaining in order to live there. We currently do not have the technology to do that, so any well-constructed and well-meaning colony is going to need massive re-supply shipments from Earth on a continual basis.

And if you think that's easy to do, just remember that NO new world colony on Earth survived for much longer than a few years without constant supplies coming from the mother country, and Earth colonies didn't have things like air and gravity to worry about. A martian colony would be an order of magnitude more difficult to sustain.
 
2014-07-10 03:25:52 PM

djscram: So they wrote a newspaper article about a Reddit thread?


Well, it IS the Daily Fail. Might as well read National Enquirer in a checkout line at the Kroger for an equal amount of info. Give it the the Aldrin Punch before you put it back......
 
2014-07-10 03:52:05 PM

djscram: So they wrote a newspaper article about a Reddit thread?


And we have a Fark article about the newspaper article.  I don't think we have a right to be pretentious about it.
 
2014-07-10 04:03:58 PM

Ishkur: Here's the problem with a permanent Mars colony:

Everything we humans need to survive is here on Earth. Gravity, air, water, food, heat... everything. Mars doesn't actually have a sufficient amount of ANYTHING that we need to live, so we'll have to take everything with us. We would have to build an exact replica of Earth conditions on Mars and have it be self-sustaining and perpetually-sustaining in order to live there. We currently do not have the technology to do that, so any well-constructed and well-meaning colony is going to need massive re-supply shipments from Earth on a continual basis.

And if you think that's easy to do, just remember that NO new world colony on Earth survived for much longer than a few years without constant supplies coming from the mother country, and Earth colonies didn't have things like air and gravity to worry about. A martian colony would be an order of magnitude more difficult to sustain.




Humans are domesticated animals.
Earth, in its natural state, no longer supports our needs.

Everything we have (save for the air) is processed and refined into the quality and quantity it takes to support a society. We have to farm and treat all of the things we need to live.
Mars has less of the basics, plus some radiation, but the process is generally the same. Setup farms, process water, refine atmosphere. We need to build buildings that sustain humans and their crops.

Most societies here have learned the basics of living independently. Yet they all ship supplies in, and so will any space colony. But eventually mars will provide for the Martians.
It's just a process that needs to be started.

/If we don't start learning how, eventually we will run out of habitat anyway.
/Earth doesn't have a whole lot more to give.
 
2014-07-10 04:07:22 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2686666/Buzz-Aldrin-say s-men-Mars-stay-create-permanent-colony-admits-little-time-say-moon-l andsings-fake.html

Not going to give the Daily Fail a click for anything short of gratuitous nudity, so I'll just give this a LOLWUT.
 
2014-07-10 04:30:45 PM
He is the doorway.
 
2014-07-10 05:31:06 PM

Fano: He is the doorway.


I checked his hands when he punched that guy, he's good.
 
2014-07-10 05:56:42 PM

Ishkur: Here's the problem with a permanent Mars colony:

Everything we humans need to survive is here on Earth. Gravity, air, water, food, heat... everything. Mars doesn't actually have a sufficient amount of ANYTHING that we need to live, so we'll have to take everything with us.


Mars is covered in oxygen from pole to pole, it's just currently locked up in iron oxide.  The atmosphere is mainly carbon dioxide (more oxygen).  This is relatively simple chemistry and the machines have been developed.  They just need to be designed and constructed for the specific environment that they'll be operating in.

Mars has been shown in recent years to possess a surprising amount of water, much of it frozen within a few meters of the surface.

The resources are there, we just have to harvest them.
 
2014-07-10 06:17:15 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Because we will plan, we will construct from the moon of Mars, over a period of six to seven years, the landing of different objects at the landing site that will be brought together to form a complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the moon.

And what happens when (not if) one or more of those objects is crashed and unusable?   No - let's start with a habitat on the moon first, where people can come and go.  As practice.  Only when we understand the issues in a real way can we even think about a manned Mars mission.

Also - I always thought the most important part of Kennedy's mandate was the "and return him safely to earth" clause.  It betokens a basic respect for life and the idea that it is unthinkable to just leave someone stranded.  When did we lose that?


We never had that.
 
2014-07-10 06:21:17 PM
Also this idea is not new.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Case_For_Mars.html?id=NC8XZEd d ojsC
 
2014-07-10 06:31:59 PM

farking_texan: The resources are there, we just have to harvest them.


Annnd where are we going to get the magnetosphere from?
 
2014-07-10 08:13:42 PM

Ishkur: farking_texan: The resources are there, we just have to harvest them.

Annnd where are we going to get the magnetosphere from?


It isn't absolutely necessary in order to sustain life.  Radiation shielding can be accomplished through areological or technological means.
 
2014-07-11 10:15:25 AM
Buzz Aldrin and Nolan Ryan.  Double the awesome.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report