- Status
AdityaU- Windbourne usually has some interesting posts, however I, like you, am having trouble figuring out the relevance with this one. (sorry Windbourne)
It would be almost equivilant to moving to an unknown part of the Earth indefinately, only completely barren. How many would actually and honestly be serious about that?
The idea sounds very romantic. But try to put yourself on a mind trip to this desolate world. You would miss the green grass and flowers, trees and rain, other people to talk to or socialize with. You would not be able to open the refrigerator at will or nestle into a soft pillow with a breeze blowing through an open window.
This is a challenge that only few would be able to tolerate. A pre-requisite would be to spend 6 months, 2 years perhaps, in total isolation here on Earth. Then offer your response or desire to go to Mars.
The challenge of building habitats from scratch on a new world would be tempting, however, and that would interest me. But I would miss all of the natural wonders of home.
No, I would not want to sign up for a one-way trip to Mars. A round trip that would last 2 years or 5 years, yes I would go. The odds of survival would not enter into my equation as the same odds of survival could theoretically apply here on Earth. If I died, so what? At least I would not be marooned indefinately on a hostile world without comfort.
Polls like this are fun, but provide no value.
The idea sounds very romantic. But try to put yourself on a mind trip to this desolate world. You would miss the green grass and flowers, trees and rain, other people to talk to or socialize with. You would not be able to open the refrigerator at will or nestle into a soft pillow with a breeze blowing through an open window.
This is a challenge that only few would be able to tolerate. A pre-requisite would be to spend 6 months, 2 years perhaps, in total isolation here on Earth. Then offer your response or desire to go to Mars.
The challenge of building habitats from scratch on a new world would be tempting, however, and that would interest me. But I would miss all of the natural wonders of home.
No, I would not want to sign up for a one-way trip to Mars. A round trip that would last 2 years or 5 years, yes I would go. The odds of survival would not enter into my equation as the same odds of survival could theoretically apply here on Earth. If I died, so what? At least I would not be marooned indefinately on a hostile world without comfort.
Polls like this are fun, but provide no value.
NOTHING is more valuable than the life of my loved ones and my own and being able to share that WITH them.
flyer456654":fk8q7zen said:rreilly656":fk8q7zen said:
I would rather die a legend than live unknown.
Then, you can try diving from the Empire State building dressed in a polka-dot tutu, while wearing an elephant mask, trailing a banner that says "Free the Pygmies of North Dakota". That is sure to get you written up somewhere. :lol:
This attitude will lead to disaster. A rush now to Mars would kill all the eolonists there. We don't have advanced hydroponics yet, the radiation will kill us, and our technology is not advanced enough for a large amount of people. We can barely get 7 people on a space station, in earth orbit. We have nothing on the moon. Suddenly, you are suggesting a massive trip so you can win fame and fortune, only to realize, as soon as you land on the red, cold, barren surface, how horrible of a mistake you made? No thanks.
Manned missions to Mars will all be one way! - Human immune system failures will kill Mars astronauts.
Astronauts to Mars may face the same fate as all mice on ISS.
All mice die of colon cancer in six months on ISS.
Their thymus shrinks, stem cells fail and immune system collapses.
All astronauts may die of cancer and immune failures in 3 years? Microgravity kills.
"Immune system compromised during spaceflight, study finds." May 14th, 2010.
http://www.physorg.com/news193046040.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213684
http://wrair-www.army.mil/files/Mouse-I ... elease.pdf
ISS Thymus Microarray
http://nssphoenix.wordpress.com/categor ... e-station/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213684
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/02-0749fjev1.pdf
AIDS Attack cartoon explains thymus shrinkage in astronauts, AIDS patients and elderly.
Could astronauts lose thymus tissue prematurely leading to Space AIDS?
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/GeneMachine/105293
Extended manned missions to the moon and other planets must await immune systems evolution/revolution.
I did my thesis on Human Genome at Los Alamos.
Astronauts to Mars may face the same fate as all mice on ISS.
All mice die of colon cancer in six months on ISS.
Their thymus shrinks, stem cells fail and immune system collapses.
All astronauts may die of cancer and immune failures in 3 years? Microgravity kills.
"Immune system compromised during spaceflight, study finds." May 14th, 2010.
http://www.physorg.com/news193046040.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213684
http://wrair-www.army.mil/files/Mouse-I ... elease.pdf
ISS Thymus Microarray
http://nssphoenix.wordpress.com/categor ... e-station/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213684
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/02-0749fjev1.pdf
AIDS Attack cartoon explains thymus shrinkage in astronauts, AIDS patients and elderly.
Could astronauts lose thymus tissue prematurely leading to Space AIDS?
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/GeneMachine/105293
Extended manned missions to the moon and other planets must await immune systems evolution/revolution.
I did my thesis on Human Genome at Los Alamos.
RussSparks":ttyjia2g said:Space_pioneer, you might want to think about changing your name
Hey, even pioneers were careful about what they were doing. We don't even have wagon carts to take us to mars anyways. At least there isn't any dysentry.. :lol:
While I wouldn't be that worried about surviving on mars since I have little doubt that the trip would be well thought out , the reason I wouldn't go is I have 2 kids in their 20s and some day in the not too distant future I will be a grandpa and I can't even consider missing out on that .
I'll go on the SECOND mission, oh about 40 - 50 years from now when we are much better able to both make it there and survive. That mission will give decent burials to all those who chose to commit suicide on this poorly planned, one way scheme.
"OOHH yes! I'm willing to die horribly on Mars just to get my name into the History Books!" Dumbest thing I ever heard!
What's the hurry? Mars isn't going anywhere and we have no reason (or the resources) to go there now.
"OOHH yes! I'm willing to die horribly on Mars just to get my name into the History Books!" Dumbest thing I ever heard!
What's the hurry? Mars isn't going anywhere and we have no reason (or the resources) to go there now.
As much as I would love to go, I had to vote not now. I have people I care about, and also a whole future ahead of me here on earth.
I'd go.
Right now, I don't have anything that I am doing that would be an acceptably equitable contribution to humanity. I'd like to do my fair share, or more than that, to contribute to mankind's advancement. If I received such an offer, I'd be more than willing to endure the ordeal. I think I'd be just one person in a very long line of hopeful candidates with the same motivations.
But, here's the catch - While I am willing to take such a sacrifice upon myself, is it really necessary? If we aren't stomped flat by a rock, don't collapse under our own economic weight and continue to make applied scientific progress a priority for the foreseeable future, do we need to send a couple of people to Mars on a one-way trip?
Here is one of the original proposals: Journal of Cosmology - To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars A collection of articles concerning Martian Colonization: Journal of Cosmology - Colonizing Mars The Human Mission to the Red Planet
There are certainly a lot of benefits to colonizing Mars. At least, if you're looking at it through the lens of the "Big Picture." Colonizing Mars would be #1 on the list of "Achievements that Helped Ensure the Survival of Humanity" seconded by discovering fire or tool use. It would be a worthy thing to accomplish with a sacrifice of oneself. But, must it be a one-way trip for a handful of seed colonists? Would it be more prudent to send and retrieve an exploration team? Or, can we just use robotics to fulfill that need which Columbus, Magellan, Cortez and Drake didn't have access to in their day?
I think the ultimate answer concerning practicality lies within the somewhat fractious debate between Manned and Unmanned exploration. Are there things that a human being can do that robots can not? Are there advantages to being able to send multiple robotic missions lasting years at the scene for the cost of a single human mission that could only last weeks before it must return?
We also have to weigh our answer while paying attention to the importance of time, in all this. In order to do that, we need to know whether or not it is necessary to start "now" or if it is manageable to begin some decades hence. Our own political environment has to be weighed into the question as well. Establishing a colony on Mars, even starting with a few humans, would be a global effort involving all the space-faring and technologically capable Nations.
Lastly, and perhaps the most important consideration of all, would be the profound effect this would have on our own perspective. I think that's the most important benefit we can achieve with such a mission. Once a sustainable Martian mission has been achieved, mankind will officially be a "multi-planet" species. There's a mind-view that goes with that which is important. Would achieving that goal today be worth the cost? Would waiting for a human explorer and return mission be worth the cost in terms of the benefits lost of being able to adopt a new world view that could unite our efforts?
I think moving forward with robotic explorers and a one-way mission plan is definitely worth the cost. We'd have at least a decade's worth of possessing a new "world view" of a multi-planet species and who knows the benefits that could have? Gaining that insight may help our species come to grips with a new outlook that could be incredibly beneficial. I don't believe anyone would want to delay the possibility for such an achievement and the positive impact it could have on all our lives and the future of our species.
Right now, I don't have anything that I am doing that would be an acceptably equitable contribution to humanity. I'd like to do my fair share, or more than that, to contribute to mankind's advancement. If I received such an offer, I'd be more than willing to endure the ordeal. I think I'd be just one person in a very long line of hopeful candidates with the same motivations.
But, here's the catch - While I am willing to take such a sacrifice upon myself, is it really necessary? If we aren't stomped flat by a rock, don't collapse under our own economic weight and continue to make applied scientific progress a priority for the foreseeable future, do we need to send a couple of people to Mars on a one-way trip?
Here is one of the original proposals: Journal of Cosmology - To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars A collection of articles concerning Martian Colonization: Journal of Cosmology - Colonizing Mars The Human Mission to the Red Planet
There are certainly a lot of benefits to colonizing Mars. At least, if you're looking at it through the lens of the "Big Picture." Colonizing Mars would be #1 on the list of "Achievements that Helped Ensure the Survival of Humanity" seconded by discovering fire or tool use. It would be a worthy thing to accomplish with a sacrifice of oneself. But, must it be a one-way trip for a handful of seed colonists? Would it be more prudent to send and retrieve an exploration team? Or, can we just use robotics to fulfill that need which Columbus, Magellan, Cortez and Drake didn't have access to in their day?
I think the ultimate answer concerning practicality lies within the somewhat fractious debate between Manned and Unmanned exploration. Are there things that a human being can do that robots can not? Are there advantages to being able to send multiple robotic missions lasting years at the scene for the cost of a single human mission that could only last weeks before it must return?
We also have to weigh our answer while paying attention to the importance of time, in all this. In order to do that, we need to know whether or not it is necessary to start "now" or if it is manageable to begin some decades hence. Our own political environment has to be weighed into the question as well. Establishing a colony on Mars, even starting with a few humans, would be a global effort involving all the space-faring and technologically capable Nations.
Lastly, and perhaps the most important consideration of all, would be the profound effect this would have on our own perspective. I think that's the most important benefit we can achieve with such a mission. Once a sustainable Martian mission has been achieved, mankind will officially be a "multi-planet" species. There's a mind-view that goes with that which is important. Would achieving that goal today be worth the cost? Would waiting for a human explorer and return mission be worth the cost in terms of the benefits lost of being able to adopt a new world view that could unite our efforts?
I think moving forward with robotic explorers and a one-way mission plan is definitely worth the cost. We'd have at least a decade's worth of possessing a new "world view" of a multi-planet species and who knows the benefits that could have? Gaining that insight may help our species come to grips with a new outlook that could be incredibly beneficial. I don't believe anyone would want to delay the possibility for such an achievement and the positive impact it could have on all our lives and the future of our species.
For those here that say either:
"The technology isn't ready yet" or "You know you're going to die, right?"
You're not the right person to go on such a trip. Did the Vikings or Polynesians says "The technology isn't right yet" when they set out across the uncharted ocean in little more than rowboats? Many of them did die, but the typical "safe" person just doesn't understand the mind of the adventurer. They know they might not come back, but seeing something that no one has ever seen before and having the confidence in believing that no matter what happens, they will figure a way out is what drives them. I don't personally want to go on such an adventure at this stage, but I can respect those that do.
It could be argued that the technological advances in sea and air travel was driven by the colonization of the new world. People invented steamships and airliners because it was took too damned long to cross the oceans and there was too much good stuff going on in the new world. People invented steamships because they NEEDED them to get to where others had gone the hard way before. If people never went to the new world in rickety sailboats, there might never have been steamships because there was no need.
"The technology isn't ready yet" or "You know you're going to die, right?"
You're not the right person to go on such a trip. Did the Vikings or Polynesians says "The technology isn't right yet" when they set out across the uncharted ocean in little more than rowboats? Many of them did die, but the typical "safe" person just doesn't understand the mind of the adventurer. They know they might not come back, but seeing something that no one has ever seen before and having the confidence in believing that no matter what happens, they will figure a way out is what drives them. I don't personally want to go on such an adventure at this stage, but I can respect those that do.
It could be argued that the technological advances in sea and air travel was driven by the colonization of the new world. People invented steamships and airliners because it was took too damned long to cross the oceans and there was too much good stuff going on in the new world. People invented steamships because they NEEDED them to get to where others had gone the hard way before. If people never went to the new world in rickety sailboats, there might never have been steamships because there was no need.
i voted for life is too good here , because the poll question is not phrased properly. i am not dying to go there, but i would rather love to.
for the initial colony of 100 people , enough stocks can be refurbished from earth every 2 years or so. and asked to look for water and oxygen needs on their own there on mars.
for the initial colony of 100 people , enough stocks can be refurbished from earth every 2 years or so. and asked to look for water and oxygen needs on their own there on mars.
I also voted life is too good here. I do think its great that a bunch of people would volunteer to go because I think it would be an awesome achievement. I'm just not one of those people that would be willing to leave Earth for a barren rock where I would have to live out the rest of my days.
I'm sure at first it would be awesome. The flight through space and meeting a whole bunch of new friends that I'd be spending the rest of my life with. The landing and first step out onto the soil of an alien planet would probably be one of the most amazing feelings ever. I'm sure watching the sun rise and set and the view would be wonderful for the first few days and weeks, but I don't think that I'd stay excited for too much longer than a few weeks if even that long.
I'm thinking that after spending day after day under a dimly lit sky, I'd begin to miss the beautiful blue sky and bright sun I grew up under. After spending days and days of looking out at cliffs and rock formations they'd lose their awe and I'd start daydreaming of the splendors of nature back on Earth, the endless oceans, the thick forests, the smell of fresh cut grass, etc. Also, after so many days of thinking about colony life, I think I would start to yearn for the faster pace of society and wonder what's happening on Earth with all the people. What are the new styles, what are the new car models, does McDonalds still have Big Macs, are there people right now at Lambeau Field watching football with thousands of other people on a chilly afternoon in the snow?
I'm sure at first it would be awesome. The flight through space and meeting a whole bunch of new friends that I'd be spending the rest of my life with. The landing and first step out onto the soil of an alien planet would probably be one of the most amazing feelings ever. I'm sure watching the sun rise and set and the view would be wonderful for the first few days and weeks, but I don't think that I'd stay excited for too much longer than a few weeks if even that long.
I'm thinking that after spending day after day under a dimly lit sky, I'd begin to miss the beautiful blue sky and bright sun I grew up under. After spending days and days of looking out at cliffs and rock formations they'd lose their awe and I'd start daydreaming of the splendors of nature back on Earth, the endless oceans, the thick forests, the smell of fresh cut grass, etc. Also, after so many days of thinking about colony life, I think I would start to yearn for the faster pace of society and wonder what's happening on Earth with all the people. What are the new styles, what are the new car models, does McDonalds still have Big Macs, are there people right now at Lambeau Field watching football with thousands of other people on a chilly afternoon in the snow?
One-way trip is the only way we are going to see a Mars mission anytime soon. I'm all for it. We can reduce risks by committing to send future supply shipments as needed to ensure colony survival. The money saved on the round trip and the technologies that would need to be developed for that should make this option more politically palatable to the politicians.
I like the one-way trip for that reason - it helps make the Mars mission something possible in the near future, rather than a distant dream to think about in 2035 or 2050. Not only that, it spreads human life to another world. In many ways, it is a superior plan to a "round-trip" plan, and it carries much more historic significance.
A round-trip plan that brings back a few rock samples from Mars is great, but it doesn't compare at all to the historic significance of establishing the first permanent human colony on another planet.
One-way to Mars clearly a superior plan.
I like the one-way trip for that reason - it helps make the Mars mission something possible in the near future, rather than a distant dream to think about in 2035 or 2050. Not only that, it spreads human life to another world. In many ways, it is a superior plan to a "round-trip" plan, and it carries much more historic significance.
A round-trip plan that brings back a few rock samples from Mars is great, but it doesn't compare at all to the historic significance of establishing the first permanent human colony on another planet.
One-way to Mars clearly a superior plan.
OK now that I have read the proposal I don't think I'll try to get selected. Four people all alone on Mars for several years before additional supplies or companions would arrive would probably make for a good study in sociology. I didn't read whether the proposal called for men and women or what mix they would use. I think the smallest group I would be willing to be part of would be 20 or so colonists.
It really would depend on what kind of infrastructure and food will be waiting for me on Mars and or how well the colony is supplied from earth.
If I'm going to be forced to live in cramped conditions ,eat bland food made from algae, and have to watch every watt of electrical power I use then the answer is no.
But if a nuclear reactor,automated factory, and dome with plants is waiting on Mars plus regular resupplies of items that cannot be made on Mars then I'll go.
I figure the plants a colony would need would include corn,wheat,oats,potatoes,cucumbers,tomatoes,beans,soy,rice,lettuce,carrots,peppers,spinach,sugar beets, various herbs and spices and hemp for fiber.
The live stock needed should be compact and able to eat plant left overs.
Talapia,cat fish,rabbits,and chickens, and goats would fit the bill.
Still some items such as beef,pork,cheese,microchips,and drugs will have to come from Earth at least for the first few years.
One very useful technology would be some sort of artificial womb as then any large animal such as a cow could be transported as a frozen embryo.
As for electronics some stuff may end up some what retro in it's outward appearance.
You could see old school CRTs , tube amps,relays, and motors with alinco magnets being used with micro chips from Earth.
DLPs would be a good replacement for large flat screen displays as the only high precision part is the DLP chip it's self the rest of the display could be made from native materials easily found on Mars.
If I'm going to be forced to live in cramped conditions ,eat bland food made from algae, and have to watch every watt of electrical power I use then the answer is no.
But if a nuclear reactor,automated factory, and dome with plants is waiting on Mars plus regular resupplies of items that cannot be made on Mars then I'll go.
I figure the plants a colony would need would include corn,wheat,oats,potatoes,cucumbers,tomatoes,beans,soy,rice,lettuce,carrots,peppers,spinach,sugar beets, various herbs and spices and hemp for fiber.
The live stock needed should be compact and able to eat plant left overs.
Talapia,cat fish,rabbits,and chickens, and goats would fit the bill.
Still some items such as beef,pork,cheese,microchips,and drugs will have to come from Earth at least for the first few years.
One very useful technology would be some sort of artificial womb as then any large animal such as a cow could be transported as a frozen embryo.
As for electronics some stuff may end up some what retro in it's outward appearance.
You could see old school CRTs , tube amps,relays, and motors with alinco magnets being used with micro chips from Earth.
DLPs would be a good replacement for large flat screen displays as the only high precision part is the DLP chip it's self the rest of the display could be made from native materials easily found on Mars.
we should be getting to Mars by 2020 and begin our first large scale exodus from Earth to Mars at about 2027. I for one cant wait to see what humanity has in store for Mars and will deffo be on the waiting list to get up there!
As long as I was given some plans to build a habitat that other's would use after I was gone then I would be all for it. But just to be sent to Mars to die?What a waste of human energy and life potential.
So many of you made the totally false analogy of historical explorers here on Earth...
Where one can always breathe without equipment.
Where liquid water is usually plentiful.
Where food is literally growing nearly everywhere there is land.
And food can also be relatively easily obtained from the oceans(water).
Where even an average person with little or no training can survive being lost without food/water/equipment for several days at least.
Where "exposure" might kill you after a few days or weeks.
I could go on...
On Mars...
You cannot breathe without equipment and supplies.
There "might" be ice from which you can make water if you're in the right place with the right equipment.
No food that you didn't bring.
Exposure can kill you in a matter of seconds.
And that's IF you survive the trip and the landing.
I could go on...
Right now a trip to Mars would be suicide. Death is NOT an adventure. And our resources, not to mention human life, is too precious to waste on such a mission at this time.
Where one can always breathe without equipment.
Where liquid water is usually plentiful.
Where food is literally growing nearly everywhere there is land.
And food can also be relatively easily obtained from the oceans(water).
Where even an average person with little or no training can survive being lost without food/water/equipment for several days at least.
Where "exposure" might kill you after a few days or weeks.
I could go on...
On Mars...
You cannot breathe without equipment and supplies.
There "might" be ice from which you can make water if you're in the right place with the right equipment.
No food that you didn't bring.
Exposure can kill you in a matter of seconds.
And that's IF you survive the trip and the landing.
I could go on...
Right now a trip to Mars would be suicide. Death is NOT an adventure. And our resources, not to mention human life, is too precious to waste on such a mission at this time.
doublehelix":2s7h62bo said:
Ok people stop over-analyzing. Its a simple yes or no question.
Just so you guys know, with the cost, they would only send people aged 20-35, similar requirements to pilots. People over 50 wouldn't be at maximum physical/mental capacity and their bodies would break down quicker.
You'd probably be spending a lot of your time underground as thats where the protection from radiation is. Wherever we land, I'm assuming we build in a crater/cavern, and if we find an aquafer down below even better.
None of this matters though, the hippies and socialists won't let us into space anytime soon. They are already complaining that virgin galactic is going to increase global warming. LMAO
Anyways, all of the WW2-era German scientists that NASA stole its ideas from died off in the 70s and NASA is full of close-minded old-farts so none of this will happen unless its through the people's Republic of China, in which case they will gladly send many to their deaths.
Before the US can accomplish anything we will have to pry off the carnivorous leeches known as politicians and special interests, and don't think they won't go without a fight.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram