One way ticket to Mars?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by cosmictraveler, Oct 28, 2010.

  1. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Or logical minded would be better. Seems no one wants to wait a few more years and travel safely then, but only wants to go now to show that it can be done.

    Remember that only 13 things that were sent to Mars ever made it there the other 23 never did, they were LOST.

    Is that a good idea to send people somewhere when you can't even get two thirds of the robotic craft there at all?

    Instead of being patient and getting problems solved, you want to risk everything just to prove you can PERHAPS do it. What is your big push to go now for?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    spacetravel is frikking dangerous. Pioneer work is frikking dangerous. Do you know how many people die attempting to climb Everest? Do you know what the ratio of deaths to succesful ascents is?

    You are clearly a risk averse character. Risk aversion did not get humanity to where we are today. Risk aversion is not how we'll get to the stars. Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes.

    Do you know the mortality rate for the settler ships that brought the first European immigrants to the Americas? Should they have waited till the QEII was making a regular crossing?

    I imagine you must work in HSE. There is no other reasonable explanation.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Actually I'm a human related person, trying to see that any risks that can be avoided will be avoided. By knowing that within a quarter of a century most risks will be taken care of through advancements in technology I'm willing to give any human a better chance of living when traveling to Mars than trying to achieve that goal today. If you enjoy risks then why don't you go a sky dive? I guess because you find it to risky. Or go drive a 200 MPH stock car in a race or are you afraid of the risks? So many things that you won't do here on Earth but yet you'd want others to chance their lives upon your enthusiasm that "nothing will go wrong" even when there are thousands of things that can.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. stratos Banned Banned

    NASA's objective is to get to Mars before Tesco does.
  8. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Cosmic, this is an idea for one-way colonization trips, not a suicide missions.

    The plan is to go to Mars to live there, not just to die there. Yes, they might eventually die on Mars, but only for the same reason that they would eventually die on Earth. And if space travel costs come down enough in the next few decades, perhaps a return journey might be possible anyway.

    Also, this is only in the "beginning research" phase, with a chicken feed budget. It won't be leaving any time soon - if it were to go ahead, it could well be 25 years away.
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Great post, write a book. Seriously. I think you've got some good ideas about Civilization. Where we were, where we are and our "end-game". Tell the world man.

    Cosmic, who da fuck... is you Braw?

    You don't even have the balls to let someone ELSE risk their life for a possible payoff in a few hundred years? Yes the payoff may not the Viking settlement in L'Anse aux Meadows did not bear fruit (for the Vikings). It doesn't hurt anyone to try. We all die someday. What is important is that dangerous travels are made with the best effort and best intentions.
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    I'm a human with the same rights as you and am enabled to have my own opinion that you may not like to hear about but you will.

    No, I'm fine in letting others risk their lives when ADEQUET SAFETY is present and everything that can be done to insure a fellow humans life has been done to help them. I guess you don't care much about others do you? Just flip the switch and send them off wherever without adequet RADIATION protectection and see how long they survive.

    I've got one for you to do. Go sit in a room that is being bombarded by LETHAL DOSAGES OF GAMMA radiation for a year and tell us what happens to you. I want you then to say there's no risk in sending fellow citizens to another planet that they will incure the same RADIATION POISIONING as you recieve when you experiment on yourself.

    It is easy to just say crap like you do for you won't risk your life and you never will. Your like most who just want others to risk everything so they can watch from a safe distance and see the results.
  12. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Get a frikking grip.

    There are people taking seriously major risks for comparatively inconsequential gains - the adrenalin rush being one of those. (Are you campaigning to stop mountaineering expeditions?) If people are willing to take a calculated risk for a significant gain, for themselves and humanity, why stop them?

    If you wait until it is reasonably safe to go to Mars we shall never get there. Understand that. Never.

    You know I don't skydive, how exactly?

    I don't want others to take those risks. I am prepared to allow them to take those risks. Their choice. And it would be my choice if I had the health to do it.
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    We waited until it was reasonably safe to send a person into orbit around the Earth. We waited until it was reasonably safe to send people to the moon so why not wait until it is reasonably safe to go to Mars? We know radiation will kill anyone that isn't protected in space for a prolonged period of time but advances are being made into resolving that problem. We know that if we can speed up the space craft to make it take only a few months to get to Mars that too would solve many problems. It will only take time to figure out these things but you and others are wanting to risk everything just so you can get your thrills seeing a person land on Mars. So why not be reasonable and just be patient to let technology catch up over a period of time rather that hastily rushing into a very dangerous project that can go wrong in a thousand ways.
  14. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    What's the point of going to mars?

    People seem to delude themselves into thinking that we will colonize the moon and mars in 50 years.

    It does not help that NASA will not debunk this myth.

    If anyone tells you we will colonize the moon or mars within 100 years they are either lieing to you or trying to sell you something.
  15. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member


    I think it's both...I'm just waiting to see "time share" commercials on TV.

    Be the first on your block to vacation in a condo on Mars..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. phlogistician Banned Banned

    No we didn't. All of these flights were seat of the pants stuff. Maybe Apollo 13's mission should remind you of just how knife edge these flights were. The fact that they nearly ran out of fuel landing the Eagle on the very first Lunar landing. The fact that the crew of Apollo 1 all burned to death, or that Grisson nearly drowned on a previous recovery capsule test.

    Rocketry is rocketry. It is never 'safe'.
  17. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Just an interesting but probably altogether useless bit of information:

    It's suggested that the average human should consume at least 2 litres of water per day, if it took 1200 days to travel to a destination this would be 2400 litres (Thats about 3m[sup]3[/sup] volume; 2,400,000g or 2,400kg) for one person alone and that's just the volume for travelling. (It obviously can be suggested that a lot of "recycling" would be going on, depending on how ergonomic it is would define either how much less would be used or how many extra days worth of travel/survival would be possible.

    (This doesn't include the water for cleaning with)

    Foodwise the simplest suggestion is to count the calories in a Pot Noddle and multiply it again by the recommended daily intake (This obviously isn't exact and the foodsource in question might not meet the criteria correctly, but we are dealing with an approximation)

    It would calculate to about 5 pots per day, so the number comes in at 11,000 pot noodles for the journey alone. that 990,000g or 990kg of pot noodles.

    (Obviously these "Snackfoods" require rehydration to eat properly which is why they were picked)

    These values are approximations and would not suggest a "Healthy diet" and again are only approximated over 1200 day's, not to mention survival for however long it would require to get a self-sufficient colony up and running.
    This is apparently the average volume of Oxygen required for a person during a physical test, we could probably imply that while not physically stressed the amount is likely 1/3 to 1/2 the amount. (between 1.2litres/minute and 1.75litres/minute)

    There are 1,728,000 minutes in 1200 days, so that's between 2,073,600 - 3,024,000 uncompressed litres of oxygen.
    Thats between 92,571 mol's and 135,000 mol's weighing in between 2,962,272g - 4,320,000g
    (Feel free to work out overall volume via Boyle's Law, I couldn't decide on an overall psi)

    (You'll probably be looking at 8+ tonnes per Colonist at least)
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Yeah, and if we try and reduce that figure by increasing recycling, we introduce complexity, and reliance upon machinery.

    The ultimate recycling experiment of course was BioSphere~2. 12,700 m2 to support just eight people, and well, it failed inside two years. Imagine launching a 12,700 m2 structure, to support just eight people. How much would that weigh!
  19. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    That is the problem any attempt is certainly heavily reliant upon technology, at least in the beginning. They'd be better off using robots for the first phase, obviously they can cost however they are expendable compared to human life, they wouldn't have to worry about Water, Food and Oxygen as well as maintaining liveable environments. The only concerns really would be spare parts and the capacity to use the robots to repair each other.
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Don't be a cretin. That was seat of the pants stuff as Phlog has said. Many of the early American attempts to loft a satellite into orbit ended in a fireball, often a only a foot or two off the launch pad. We sent people up just as soon as we thought there was a passable chance they might make it. The US got incredibly lucky throughout the Mercury and Gemini programs. Half the Mercury flights and at least a third of the Gemini flights were within a gnat's hair of disaster.

    The luck ran out in Apollo on the launch pad and there was another gnat's hair recovery on 13.

    You did know two shuttles were lost? That's thirty years after it was reasonably safe to send a person into orbit.

    Try to check your facts before you spout nonsense.
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    I made certain I stated "REASONABLY SAFE" for just that reason. They experimented allot before they sent anyone into orbit for the first time. All my point is that we wait until we can protect people better that we can now, which isn't much protection at all.
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    They have a waste water treatment device that allows for you to use your own urine over and over don't forget.
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Indeed, however it's best to start with uncompressed full figures before whittling it down via recycling efficiency. I doubt most people would want to start on a cyclic intravenous feed straight away.

Share This Page