• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Mars One...Way Mission

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/07/contest-to-launch-mars-mission/15245085/
I would go.However.I do not think they would take a 62 year old guy with health issues.
There are so many things to consider beyond the tech stuff.
The moral and legal questions.
Thoughts.
I have no interest in a one way trip to Mars. It would be damned boring to spend years and years in a small self-contained capsule not able to even go out onto the surface for a walk and explore without wearing a full space suit.

That's not to say that I wouldn't love to spend a couple weeks on Mars, the Moon, or even the ISS.
 
Assuming sufficient backing on Earth I favor making all Mars missions one-way. Such missions should be treated as colonization missions, not merely exploration missions.
 
I remain pretty skeptical about Mars One. However, if they're succesfull... it would be the weirdest thing: 10+ years ago, who would've ever predicted that instead of the governments of the US, the EU, Russia, or China, it'd be a private Dutch company that would be the first to land humans on Mars, and that they'd fund it through reality TV?

In your face, reasonable expectations.
 
I remain pretty skeptical about Mars One. However, if they're succesfull... it would be the weirdest thing: 10+ years ago, who would've ever predicted that instead of the governments of the US, the EU, Russia, or China, it'd be a private Dutch company that would be the first to land humans on Mars, and that they'd fund it through reality TV?

In your face, reasonable expectations.

Mars One doesn't have a chance. Where's the money going to come from?!?!
 
I remain pretty skeptical about Mars One. However, if they're succesfull... it would be the weirdest thing: 10+ years ago, who would've ever predicted that instead of the governments of the US, the EU, Russia, or China, it'd be a private Dutch company that would be the first to land humans on Mars, and that they'd fund it through reality TV?

In your face, reasonable expectations.

Mars One doesn't have a chance. Where's the money going to come from?!?!

The NFL - it will do a lot to distract from the nature of some players, now lighting up pop media.
 
I remain pretty skeptical about Mars One. However, if they're succesfull... it would be the weirdest thing: 10+ years ago, who would've ever predicted that instead of the governments of the US, the EU, Russia, or China, it'd be a private Dutch company that would be the first to land humans on Mars, and that they'd fund it through reality TV?

In your face, reasonable expectations.

Mars One doesn't have a chance. Where's the money going to come from?!?!

"The Red World" TV reality show that will rake in millions of dollars per second on advertising funds as every man woman and child tunes in to see what horrible thing hapeens to them next on their journey... their will be challenges too... like, "drink the piss" and "Blandfolded EVA".. nevermind the cabin feaver induced battles...
 
Mars suffers from the same problems as the Moon. There's nothing there of which we don't have plenty on Earth, plus it's a lot farther away.

The Mars colony idea would be a bit more attractive if there were some change of a sustainable life. Humans managed to live in almost every environment on this planet with the simplest technology, which is a testament to us. Go us. A low tech life is simply not possible on Mars. A trip to Mars with no return ticket would be like swimming out into the ocean, just to see how long you could tread water.
 
Mars suffers from the same problems as the Moon. There's nothing there of which we don't have plenty on Earth, plus it's a lot farther away.

The Mars colony idea would be a bit more attractive if there were some change of a sustainable life. Humans managed to live in almost every environment on this planet with the simplest technology, which is a testament to us. Go us. A low tech life is simply not possible on Mars. A trip to Mars with no return ticket would be like swimming out into the ocean, just to see how long you could tread water.

You need a fairly large population and occasional resupply of high tech parts until they can bring their industry up to the level needed to make everything they need to live.

Off the top of my head I can come up with one thing Mars has that Earth does not: Nearby moons suitable for elevators.

This makes space launches a walk in the park. While the Martian gravity well is nowhere near as deep as ours it's still a lot of Δv--and fuel use with increasing Δv is exponential.

Now, while current technology *COULD* construct an elevator on Mars it would be awfully thick in the middle and there would be the big headaches of the two Martian moons.

Instead, lets build two elevators, one on each moon.

The Phobos elevator is 5680km long. On the downswing it's just above the Martian atmosphere and traveling less than 1/2 km/sec. You don't need much of a rocket to jump up and catch the cable. The payload transfers, the rocket falls back and uses it's engine to land. You might even be able to build an airplane that can hop out of the atmosphere to do this.

On the upswing the payload is just shy of Earth injection orbit--you can get to Earth by expending very little fuel.

However, the real power comes from having two elevators. Unfortunately, I can't find any numbers on the one for Deimos but it certainly can throw things better than the Phobos one--and it's an almost zero-energy transfer between the two elevators.

Thus spacecraft can be launched *FAR* more cheaply from Mars than from Earth. Once there's enough infrastructure there to build them it should launch all deep space craft and it might even be cheaper (although slower) to launch Earth-orbiting satellites from Mars.
 
Mars suffers from the same problems as the Moon. There's nothing there of which we don't have plenty on Earth, plus it's a lot farther away.

The Mars colony idea would be a bit more attractive if there were some change of a sustainable life. Humans managed to live in almost every environment on this planet with the simplest technology, which is a testament to us. Go us. A low tech life is simply not possible on Mars. A trip to Mars with no return ticket would be like swimming out into the ocean, just to see how long you could tread water.

You need a fairly large population and occasional resupply of high tech parts until they can bring their industry up to the level needed to make everything they need to live.

Off the top of my head I can come up with one thing Mars has that Earth does not: Nearby moons suitable for elevators.

This makes space launches a walk in the park. While the Martian gravity well is nowhere near as deep as ours it's still a lot of Δv--and fuel use with increasing Δv is exponential.

Now, while current technology *COULD* construct an elevator on Mars it would be awfully thick in the middle and there would be the big headaches of the two Martian moons.

Instead, lets build two elevators, one on each moon.

The Phobos elevator is 5680km long. On the downswing it's just above the Martian atmosphere and traveling less than 1/2 km/sec. You don't need much of a rocket to jump up and catch the cable. The payload transfers, the rocket falls back and uses it's engine to land. You might even be able to build an airplane that can hop out of the atmosphere to do this.

On the upswing the payload is just shy of Earth injection orbit--you can get to Earth by expending very little fuel.

However, the real power comes from having two elevators. Unfortunately, I can't find any numbers on the one for Deimos but it certainly can throw things better than the Phobos one--and it's an almost zero-energy transfer between the two elevators.

Thus spacecraft can be launched *FAR* more cheaply from Mars than from Earth. Once there's enough infrastructure there to build them it should launch all deep space craft and it might even be cheaper (although slower) to launch Earth-orbiting satellites from Mars.

What you just described is a pier. A pier is great because it can be used to service a ship too large to get close to the shore.

Now what? There's still nothing on Mars that we don't have here. It's great that it's easier to launch rockets from Mars, but where do they go from there? It's great that it makes space travel cheaper, but how are we paying for it in the first place, and why are we doing it?
 
You need a fairly large population and occasional resupply of high tech parts until they can bring their industry up to the level needed to make everything they need to live.

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke.

How can you get a million dollars and not pay any taxes?

First thing, get a million dollars.
 
What you just described is a pier. A pier is great because it can be used to service a ship too large to get close to the shore.

Now what? There's still nothing on Mars that we don't have here. It's great that it's easier to launch rockets from Mars, but where do they go from there? It's great that it makes space travel cheaper, but how are we paying for it in the first place, and why are we doing it?

In a sense, yes, it's a pier.

If we stay here on Earth forever we will eventually get wiped out. Spreading out is essential for survival.
 
Been thinking about this one for a while; I wonder if the folks signing up for this are (stupidly) betting that if anything goes wrong or if they get home-sick a rescue mission will of course be sent ... and what a conundrum that would indeed present; imagine them pleading on live television to be rescued; they'd have the whole world taking pity in their plight.

Wouldn't some folks in government (somewhere) have also thought along these lines and decided that they either wouldn't allow it or start preparing for a rescue mission (to some degree if only planning)? I mean, isn't in some ways allowing this the same as allowing assisted suicide (which I don't oppose but loads of people do)?

Miq
 
Been thinking about this one for a while; I wonder if the folks signing up for this are (stupidly) betting that if anything goes wrong or if they get home-sick a rescue mission will of course be sent ... and what a conundrum that would indeed present; imagine them pleading on live television to be rescued; they'd have the whole world taking pity in their plight.

Wouldn't some folks in government (somewhere) have also thought along these lines and decided that they either wouldn't allow it or start preparing for a rescue mission (to some degree if only planning)? I mean, isn't in some ways allowing this the same as allowing assisted suicide (which I don't oppose but loads of people do)?

Miq
You are right.

If this Martian settlement plan assumes that everything will go perfectly so there is no backup contingency plan in place to rescue the settlers, then it is really stupid if not suicidal.
 
What you just described is a pier. A pier is great because it can be used to service a ship too large to get close to the shore.

Now what? There's still nothing on Mars that we don't have here. It's great that it's easier to launch rockets from Mars, but where do they go from there? It's great that it makes space travel cheaper, but how are we paying for it in the first place, and why are we doing it?

In a sense, yes, it's a pier.

If we stay here on Earth forever we will eventually get wiped out. Spreading out is essential for survival.

What is going to wipe us out? We've been here an awful long time. Are you saying that a species that can travel across the solar system and set up housekeeping on a desert planet isn't smart enough to keep this one operating?
 
In a sense, yes, it's a pier.

If we stay here on Earth forever we will eventually get wiped out. Spreading out is essential for survival.

What is going to wipe us out? We've been here an awful long time. Are you saying that a species that can travel across the solar system and set up housekeeping on a desert planet isn't smart enough to keep this one operating?

You are more likely to die from a meteorite than from being struck by lightning.
http://io9.com/5839058/why-youre-more-likely-to-die-from-a-meteor-strike-than-a-lightning-strike

Potential cosmic cataclysmic disasters are more common than most people presume.
 
In a sense, yes, it's a pier.

If we stay here on Earth forever we will eventually get wiped out. Spreading out is essential for survival.

What is going to wipe us out? We've been here an awful long time. Are you saying that a species that can travel across the solar system and set up housekeeping on a desert planet isn't smart enough to keep this one operating?

In addition to the cosmic disasters there are the man-made ones. War, biological disaster.

Something prevents civilizations from colonizing the galaxy. The galaxy is full of planets--there are places for life. Looking at how fast life formed on Earth that's unlikely to be the culprit. Thus either it's a matter of evolution (it took a long time to make the leap to multi-cellular life) or survival. Impact events pose a serious threat on cosmic time scales.

Either we have been exceedingly lucky and made it past the filter or else the filter is ahead--and if it's ahead it basically has to be something we to do ourselves. Will we be a viable technological species 100 years from now? I certainly hope so but I wouldn't bet on it. The more baskets we can put our eggs in the better.
 
Prime Directive prevents aliens from visiting our star system.
Galaxy has been colonized long time ago, it's freaking Star Trek up there.
 
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the first few Mars missions are staffed by people who have a limited time to live and volunteer in the full knowledge that they're not coming back.
 
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the first few Mars missions are staffed by people who have a limited time to live and volunteer in the full knowledge that they're not coming back.
I understand that but I would have been surprised.
No sane politician would allow that.
Sending people to Mars and then returning them safely is not hard, it's just a lot of money.
 
Back
Top Bottom