- #36
cesiumfrog
- 2,010
- 5
Look at this measly forum, with a few score votes and despotically moderated discussion.
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=2080&aid=-1
http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=2080&aid=-1
Tanelorn said:I didn't suggest that the rest of the world looks to the US, nor do I wish to start a nationalist thread. I only meant that I personally have a lot of respect for the people that put men on the moon. I don't know where you are getting the rest from. ta ta..
Radrook said:The asteroid belt is far more enticing with it's mineral wealth. Nearer as well.
Post-Marxian labor-alienated mankind, maybe. The point of Mars-settlement would be to execute the possibility from starting with as little imported resources as possible and cultivating a sustainable colony. It would be quite impressive if people could come up with a plan that uses minimum launch-payload from Earth to establish (semi)permanent viability on Mars. This could involve a basic plan for harnessing energy, establishing a foundry, fabricating and assembling an airtight structure, being able to grow enough biomass to provide sustenance to a crew, and ensuring that air and water resources remained sufficiently abundant and clean. Of course the colonists would need a bail-out plan to escape to Earth when/if problems would occur. It might take numerous tries to achieve a reliable system but once established, the system could be used as a platform for further attempts on other planets/moons. Energy is the big issue, imo, because sunlight fades as you get further away and Venus seems to be too hot to colonize.Radrook said:To be honest, apart from satisfying curiosity, I really fail to see the urgency needed to go so far just to get to a hostile place like that. If the sun were threatening to expand soon, then OK. That definitely would be a motivator. The asteroid belt is far more enticing with it's mineral wealth. Without material motivators mankind tends to languish.
Phrak said:MEN WANTED: FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."
- SIR ERNEST SHACKLETON
Shackleton got his men.
turbo-1 said:You'll get high doses of radiation, unless the Sun stays incredibly quiet during the whole trip. Once outside of the Earth's magnetic field, Solar tantrums get really serious.
jarednjames said:The asteroid belt is nearer to us than Mars? Are you sure?
brainstorm said:Someone said that early on in the thread, as I recall, and that was the only reason I mentioned nationalism. Space exploration has be appropriated as a vehicle for promoting nationalist competition, from the so-called "space race," (although this was more of a competition between capitalist and communist economic paradigms) to recent renewed interest in the moon by multiple national governments. I think google was also named as a player, but as I recall that was the only non-governmental corporation. Ideally, space exploration would be pursued by global corporations with no dominant ethno/national identity, but the nationalists of the human race tend to re-code everything into some variant of national identity, whether it be "international," "multinational," "transnational," or just labeling everything that's not ethnically homogeneous "American." Maybe the final frontier in space exploration will be the deconstruction of nationalism in space and ultimately the universe generally. Of course, then people will probably start claiming that each nation has its own universe in "the multiverse" . . .
Radrook said:Just recently on the discovery channel they were hypothesizing about how to take out moon colonies without using explosives. Kinetic energy was the suggested method. Huge rods plummeting down at enormous speed would do the trick they said. Of course this had been suggested before as a means of hitting targets on earth. But hey! who says that space is sacred when it comes to good ole moronic nationalistic bickering?
I would but who will fund such flight? I wonder, would be there at least one wealthy person who will spend money for such journey? Also, what do you think homework much it would cost to build one-seat spacecraft for Martian spaceflight? When doing this we could use old technologies from "Mercury-Gemini-Apolo" and/or "Soyuz" flights, no new technologies would be needed We should just think about protection from radiationWould you take a one-way trip to Mars?
Why does it have to require wealth persons to spend money? Couldn't governments simply declare access to the needed materials and resources if they thought they could get away with it?Eagle9 said:I would but who will fund such flight? I wonder, would be there at least one wealthy person who will spend money for such journey? Also, what do you think homework much it would cost to build one-seat spacecraft for Martian spaceflight? When doing this we could use old technologies from "Mercury-Gemini-Apolo" and/or "Soyuz" flights, no new technologies would be needed We should just think about protection from radiation
brainstorm said:Why does it have to require wealth persons to spend money? Couldn't governments simply declare access to the needed materials and resources if they thought they could get away with it?
Phrak said:MEN WANTED: FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."
- SIR ERNEST SHACKLETON
Shackleton got his men.
WhoWee said::uhh:Does this mean there will be single women on board (some may reason).
gb7nash said:The only way I'd take a one-way trip to Mars is if it were colonized (e.g. Total Recall). I wouldn't go there now though, there's nothing to do and I'd run out of life support!
Borg said:The one-way schemes involve maintaining supplies over the lifetime of the astronauts. The thinking is that it would be much more difficult to return the astronauts than to just supply them for life.
You're probably right. It does make more sense that they would have to be 100% self-sufficient. Trying to maintain regular supply to Mars would make the Berlin airlift look like a bucket brigade. Even 'emergency' supplies would still take months to years to arrive depending on the planetary alignments.NeoDevin said:No, the thinking is that it would be easier for the astronauts to produce whatever they need, rather than come home to get it.
Two weeks into a nineteen week application period, more than 78,000 people have applied to become a settler of Mars in 2023.
Mars One, the nonprofit with the goal of establishing a human settlement on the planet, announced the milestone.
"This is turning out to be the most desired job in history," said Bas Lansdorp, co-founder and CEO of Mars One, in the announcement. "These numbers put us right on track for our goal of half a million applicants.”
You necromanced the wrong thread. This thread is (was) about a science daily article, which in turn was based on an supposedly scientific article in a supposedly scientific journal. The Science Daily article is no longer available (dead link in the original post) and that supposedly scientific journal isn't listed in Thomson Reuters (posting a link would be against our rules). There was no time line, no plan, no budget, but there also isn't a reality TV show.Greg Bernhardt said:I'm bringing this back because 78k people did sign up for the one way trip!
Which goal is that? Maybe getting people on Mars but with nary a chance of coming home, getting people to Mars with the chance of coming back home, or getting more people in space in general, with an eye to eventually making the vast expenditures useful/productive? These are three very different goals and hence have very different development trajectories.Blandified said:I am very skeptical on the ability of Mars One to actually accomplish this with our current technology, but shouldn't we aim for this goal anyways?