primexx Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 i'd probably go for it after some serious consideration... provided that the necessities of life, health care, perpetual hardware upgrades (yes, that means computer hardware, but of course the rest of the living accommodations too), and a broadband internet connection was guaranteed. the lag might be annoying though, but I don't play many games so it should be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 How about colonizing the moon as stated earlier before aiming for Mars ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primexx Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 How about colonizing the moon as stated earlier before aiming for Mars ? it's cheaper and more feasible to go directly to mars with current technology than to use the moon as a launch pad, which requires setting up a base first and then going to mars. it'd be better to go directly to both places independently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeston Veteran Posted October 31, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 31, 2010 I personally think I would go for it. The advances in science due to your sacrifice would be epic. Besides. You would have a fair old long life there. Not a go there, work 10 days and die job. That's what I'm thinking. And it's not like you'd go down there and have nothing to do. You'd have a life filled with research, adventure, and discovery, all to better humanity in a huge way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Veteran Posted October 31, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 31, 2010 Survivor Mars! coming soon. :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas-c Veteran Posted October 31, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 31, 2010 i'd probably go for it after some serious consideration... provided that the necessities of life, health care, perpetual hardware upgrades (yes, that means computer hardware, but of course the rest of the living accommodations too), and a broadband internet connection was guaranteed. the lag might be annoying though, but I don't play many games so it should be acceptable. Depending on the orbit it could be anywhere from 3 mins to 30 mins for the signal to reach you. Wonder if my local takeaway would accept an order for mars... That's what I'm thinking. And it's not like you'd go down there and have nothing to do. You'd have a life filled with research, adventure, and discovery, all to better humanity in a huge way! Oh yeah, your name would go down in the books for ever. Another problem with sending people to mars is that governments here would have to fund it, even in 40 year time. No chance could you cut funding for something like that. Mentality would be a major issue too. It's a 6 month journey there, by the time you have done that you may have changed your mind completely. Let alone if 1 tiny thing goes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 this would outrage sooo many people. its not a smart mission I think. Everything outrages someone. Today's society is a bunch on whiners, who always have to complain about something to be honest. This mission is very smart, it's just not viable to send people to and then back home from Mars. Sure a one way trip sounds not so good, but I'm sure there would be hundreds of people who would love the chance to be the first inter-planetary pioneers. The main issue with such a mission of cause is designing a spacecraft that not only can carry the colonists (and their food and necessary fuel and equipment etc) to Mars but get them back as well. Removing the return trip means it simplifies the spacecraft (it just needs to get to Mars and land; not also take off again, return to Earth and land), this means it can carry more colonists and supplies/equipment and more importantly, it will be cheaper to build. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I just see this going all so wrong in the end. One way trip is asking a lot. I love food too much to stay on Mars forever without having a pizza joint around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windows7even Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 We will never see a human set foot on mars in our lifetime....NASA never does anything risky anymore like they did back in the gemni, mercury, and Apollo days. Wish we had a president with a fraction of the ambition and muster that JFK had and then something like this might actually get done in our lifetimes. Too many politicians involved in the process so nothing ever gets done. Hell maybe I should build me a ACME rocket like wile e coyote or Billy bob thornton and fly my $ss to mars. At least wouldn't have to deal with this worlds political rubbish there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted October 31, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 31, 2010 Writing in the Journal of Cosmology, scientists Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies envisaged sending four volunteer astronauts on the first mission to colonise Mars. Anyone get a "Waters of Mars" Doctor Who vibe from that? Maybe it's just me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3ntury Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Solve the homeless problem - send them to Mars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*RedBull* Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Wouldn't it make sense to test those technologies on the moon first? Work out issues and perfect them before hurling them at Mars. Plus if you focus on developing settlements on the moon you can then use the moon as a manufacturing plant/ launchpad to send missions to the other planets. Cheaper than launching direct from earth. I've been thinking that for over a decade now...I think the shuttle program out lived it's purpose. Settlment on the moon should be the immediate goal and developing industries there on, from which lauching to Mars could be done much easier. I'd go. It's clear that it will take several one-way missions to begin settling on Mars. Each mission would be there to complete a phase of settlement until full vaiable settlement was achieved. So like the first three or four missions would be pretty much suicide. Get there accomplish some tasks for settlement before your resources ran out then follow protocal to your end. Next group arrives to do basically another set of tasks similiarly, so on and so forth until permenante settlement is achieved. I'd go on the first missions with maybe a month to live on Mars. But I'd get to rape and pilage on Earth first before I went. :devil: Solve the homeless problem - send them to Mars! may as well send them to settle on the Sun's surface lol. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyme Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 "The human space program is now aimed at settling other worlds." No hint of any possible reason for this? Your tax dollars are being spent on such a program that allows other people to outcast themselves from Earth for the rest of their life... I say let people volunteer for such an expedition, but don't take the money for the program out of me, let the person volunteering pay their own cost to do so, if they can't pay it, they don't get to go. Another problem with sending people to mars is that governments here would have to fund it, even in 40 year time. No chance could you cut funding for something like that. ..... Let alone if 1 tiny thing goes wrong. How do we justify such an enormous initial expense, and the burden of such an enormous ongoing expenditure commitment, to the constituents of a nation rapidly becoming impoverished by mass unemployment, soaring personal and national debt levels, inadequate health and education systems, addiction to expensive global militancy, and dependence on imported energy, without even referring to a reason for such an extravagant and risky mission? How does a debtor nation like the USA explain such indulgent, non income-producing expenditure to it's increasingly nervous creditors, (mainly China)? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detection Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I dont think they would invite just your average person to go live on mars, they would take people who had training, very fit, probably done the south/north pole hikes, survived in extreme conditions etc Stick you or me on mars and we be dead in a day or two Also, no oxygen without supply.... no thanks - it takes 4 months to reach mars from earth and if halfway through the rocket dies, we got another 4+ months to wait, and if something goes wrong there etc etc We are not advanced enough to do this yet, once we have a mode of transport that can get to mars from the earth in a few days, maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webeagle12 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Share Posted October 31, 2010 Everything outrages someone. Today's society is a bunch on whiners, who always have to complain about something to be honest. This mission is very smart, it's just not viable to send people to and then back home from Mars. Sure a one way trip sounds not so good, but I'm sure there would be hundreds of people who would love the chance to be the first inter-planetary pioneers. The main issue with such a mission of cause is designing a spacecraft that not only can carry the colonists (and their food and necessary fuel and equipment etc) to Mars but get them back as well. Removing the return trip means it simplifies the spacecraft (it just needs to get to Mars and land; not also take off again, return to Earth and land), this means it can carry more colonists and supplies/equipment and more importantly, it will be cheaper to build. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt. best answer right there..... myself I would go for it too, I don't have nothing to lose. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I dont think they would invite just your average person to go live on mars, they would take people who had training, very fit, probably done the south/north pole hikes, survived in extreme conditions etc Stick you or me on mars and we be dead in a day or two Also, no oxygen without supply.... no thanks - it takes 4 months to reach mars from earth and if halfway through the rocket dies, we got another 4+ months to wait, and if something goes wrong there etc etc We are not advanced enough to do this yet, once we have a mode of transport that can get to mars from the earth in a few days, maybe Of cause, only the best of the best would be chosen to go on the mission but I suspect they'd have little trouble finding volunteers to go on such a historic (and significant) journey. Well the rockets don't need to be firing all the time, they are just needed for taking off from Earth (obviously) and a bit of a boast to get going and then the spacecraft can just glide the rest of the way to Mars (maybe they slingshot it around Venus or Earth [not sure which they use for Mars missions] to pick up a little speed) because remember, no air in space to slow it down. Then when it reaches Mars, needs to fire the rockets to slow down and land on the surface. As for the potential problems on the way there or when they arrive? well obviously they'll be trained to deal with as many potential issues as NASA can think up but ultimately it'll be up to them and a risk they all accepted when signing up for the mission. Nothing is safe, walking across the street is dangerous and potentially life threatening. I don't think NASA is going to wait for faster mode of travel to get to Mars, they are pretty confident it could be happening as soon as 20 years from now (obviously that mean nothing and only time will tell for sure...). To be honest I doubt the 4 month journey time is going to dampen anyone's spirits on this mission. I mean if people just gave up on going to new places because it takes too long to get there, where would the world be? with all the great explorers before us that went on epic journeys that went months, years..I think a 4 month trip to a place no human has ever been is a small price to pay ;) but that is just my opinion, take with a grain of salt. EDIT: A thing to note is, when they finally do launch this mission it may not be a 4 month journey. As of now a Nuclear rocket can [theoretically] propel our would be colonists to Mars in 4 months. Even within the approximate time frame of 20 years, we could of developed propulsion technology that could half that time (maybe even more) and since we do know they [NASA] are currently working on new technologies to that end, I think it's safe to say the travel time is not going to be a huge issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_f Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Anyone get a "Waters of Mars" Doctor Who vibe from that? Maybe it's just me.... This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffney Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 The Shining Mars Mission We plan on sending people on a one way trip to mars become the winter caretakers of an isolated hotel first people to start Colonization of the planet. Being so isolated with the combination of deterioration of health due to the low gravity might cause you to go completely insane and start killing everyone. Try keep yourself busy and write a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 It is possible, have you never seen Total Recall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Battery Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Sounds too risky to me. On the moon you stand a chance if there is some kind of disaster but on Mars nobody could get to you in case of disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ap0x Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I believe that there would be lots of volunteers.... Its a chance of a new begining, abandoning a, nowadays, predictable lifestyle.. Instead of studying, working, creating a family, living quietly live like everyone else and die.....You would grow, study, go to mars, colonize it, explore a new world, be a pionner and have sex with aliens...nice! :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 It is possible, have you never seen Total Recall? Maybe we should invent faster-than-light travel. It is possible, have you ever seen star trek, star wars, firefly, star gate and every other piece of science FICTION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Why would it have to outrage anybody? They are not sending anyone against their will. Yet. :shiftyninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted October 31, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 31, 2010 This isn't a good idea, in my opinion. People might be up for it now, but what if some change their minds? They won't be allowed back... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thechronic Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Of course Nasa will make sure these people are aware of the risk but if money would be the only thing preventing the rescue of these people then in my view that is criminal and makes Nasa as bad as the Russians with the Kursk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts