87 réponses à ce sujet

[naughty99]

A few months ago, the Mars One Project announced plans to send a mission to mars in 2023 to establish a self-sustaining colony who would remain there permanently, never returning to Earth. More info in their presentation video

Now another project to colonize Mars has been announced

The founder of Tesla plans to send 80,000 people to colonize Mars at $500,000 per ticket.

Would you sign up for either of these? Do you think either, or both will succeed?

Modifié par naughty99, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:04 .

[legion999]

$500,000? That's a lot, especially when you're telling people they won't be going back to Earth.

Wait you'll return to Earth with the second one? Oh to hell with it I'll check this out after sleep.

Modifié par legion999, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Volus Warlord]

I would live on a Martian colony if:

1.) There was next to no risk of death,
2.) I would not have to pay to go there,
3.) I had something productive to do with my time,
4.) I would be there for <5 years (permanent? screw that!)

[Volus Warlord]

And it seems that it will be funded via making the thing a reality TV show?

[DarkDragon777]

>Implying there are 80,000 people who can just unload $500,000 out of their pockets.

[Fast Jimmy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

And it seems that it will be funded via making the thing a reality TV show?

The Mars One project will, yes.

I would not enjoy the Mars One project, personally. It requires ten years of training, roughly, and they only plan on sending around 40 people up there. That is, to me, a recipe for widespread homicide. Being stuck in the same two or three tiny living areas with the same two or three dozen people for the rest of my life... I mean, that's what an insane asylum is essentially, yes? You are just asking for people to go crazy and masacre each other... on reality TV, no less.

Mars colonization is going to be incredibly risky, in almost every respect, simply because it hinges on technology. If something breaks down, you better have every spare part needed to rebuild it on hand, as well as the expertise to do so, otherwise you are looking at an imminent death for everyone involved. 

Colonizing a place like the Americas, which were full of natural resources STILL had insanely high mortality rates. But colonizing another planet, with no possible way of obtaining food, water, shelter against freezing cold elements or breathable air without technology... that's a recipe for death. One meteorite, one solar storm, one of a thousand ways we don't even know about to have Mars ruin your day and then everyone is dead. You can't get life support out if things go terribly wrong in less than three to six months. And I think I may even be really generous there with that. 

Point being - I would love to colonize both the Moon, Mars and Jupiter's moons tomorrow. But charging people to go to a death trap is a bad idea. The "no return" policy on these trips is what makes them viable (since they don't have to worry about getting anyone back to Earth, they can use today's technology to get a rocket there) but its also what makes them inherently dangerous. We in the State here just got done celebrating Thanksgiving, where (supposedly, the historical validity of this is highly questionably) the Pilgrims had survived an incredibly harsh first year and the Native Americans who had helped them adapt to their new environment sat and broke bread with them. Regardless of how inaccurate this celebration may be, the fact remains - the original colonization of North and South America killed a lot people. And you could still breathe the air, drink the water, grow your food and sleep at night all without having to worry about a generator breaking down, an air filter going down or a hydroponic system burning out. All it takes is a hole in the wall caused by ten dozen different things and the entire colony is dead.

That's bad odds.

[naughty99]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

>Implying there are 80,000 people who can just unload $500,000 out of their pockets.

In most parts of Southern California, this is about what you'd pay for a very small house or condo. I'd imagine there must be more than 80,000 homeowners in the area.

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

And it seems that it will be funded via making the thing a reality TV show?

The Mars One project will, yes.

I would not enjoy the Mars One project, personally. It requires ten years of training, roughly, and they only plan on sending around 40 people up there. That is, to me, a recipe for widespread homicide. Being stuck in the same two or three tiny living areas with the same two or three dozen people for the rest of my life... I mean, that's what an insane asylum is essentially, yes? You are just asking for people to go crazy and masacre each other... on reality TV, no less.

Mars colonization is going to be incredibly risky, in almost every respect, simply because it hinges on technology. If something breaks down, you better have every spare part needed to rebuild it on hand, as well as the expertise to do so, otherwise you are looking at an imminent death for everyone involved. 

Colonizing a place like the Americas, which were full of natural resources STILL had insanely high mortality rates. But colonizing another planet, with no possible way of obtaining food, water, shelter against freezing cold elements or breathable air without technology... that's a recipe for death. One meteorite, one solar storm, one of a thousand ways we don't even know about to have Mars ruin your day and then everyone is dead. You can't get life support out if things go terribly wrong in less than three to six months. And I think I may even be really generous there with that. 

Point being - I would love to colonize both the Moon, Mars and Jupiter's moons tomorrow. But charging people to go to a death trap is a bad idea. The "no return" policy on these trips is what makes them viable (since they don't have to worry about getting anyone back to Earth, they can use today's technology to get a rocket there) but its also what makes them inherently dangerous. We in the State here just got done celebrating Thanksgiving, where (supposedly, the historical validity of this is highly questionably) the Pilgrims had survived an incredibly harsh first year and the Native Americans who had helped them adapt to their new environment sat and broke bread with them. Regardless of how inaccurate this celebration may be, the fact remains - the original colonization of North and South America killed a lot people. And you could still breathe the air, drink the water, grow your food and sleep at night all without having to worry about a generator breaking down, an air filter going down or a hydroponic system burning out. All it takes is a hole in the wall caused by ten dozen different things and the entire colony is dead.

That's bad odds.

And that is why they are all signing waivers.

They are already merchandising this effort. They are wasting no time. *nods*

Yes, advancement is dangerous. It will always be dangerous. But there are means to bypass or mitigate these dangers.

[Fast Jimmy]

naughty99 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

>Implying there are 80,000 people who can just unload $500,000 out of their pockets.

In most parts of Southern California, this is about what you'd pay for a very small house or condo. I'd imagine there must be more than 80,000 homeowners in the area.

So... you're saying P. Diddy will want to go to Mars?

Volus Warlord wrote...

And that is why they are all signing waivers.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

They are already merchandising this effort. They are wasting no time. *nods*

Yes, advancement is dangerous. It will always be dangerous. But there are means to bypass or mitigate these dangers.

Advancement is one thing. Certain death is another. 

I would be less skeptical if we had done anything like the movie BioDome, where we have proven that we can keep a system running to sustain life, totally devoid of outside help (or, at least, where help would take six months to arrive). But, to my knowledge, we haven't. So if sending people out onto another planet is our first attempt at it... that's a recipe for failure.

[DarkDragon777]

naughty99 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

>Implying there are 80,000 people who can just unload $500,000 out of their pockets.

In most parts of Southern California, this is about what you'd pay for a very small house or condo. I'd imagine there must be more than 80,000 homeowners in the area.

You really think they just pay their house off in one payment?

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 27 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Advancement is one thing. Certain death is another. 

I would be less skeptical if we had done anything like the movie BioDome, where we have proven that we can keep a system running to sustain life, totally devoid of outside help (or, at least, where help would take six months to arrive). But, to my knowledge, we haven't. So if sending people out onto another planet is our first attempt at it... that's a recipe for failure.

Psh the two can be one and the same! If they actually pull off stage 1, that is, getting all the crew and gear and $$ to send a colony to Mars, that will be a HUGE feat. From that point on, it will be a technological win-win.

If everything works as expected, GREAT!! We research, and figure out the strong and weak points of the current approach, and see what else can be done.

If something goes horribly wrong that results in human loss and/or suffering, it may not be inherently bad in the long run, so long as we figure out why things went wrong and correct for it. There are countless examples in history where people suffered or were killed for technological advancement-Marie Curie is one example that sticks out to me now. Their loss is a shame, but their work was to humanity's benefit. This colony attempt is no different.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I must admit that I am a bit disappointed by the lack of Total Recall quotes in this topic.

[Arcadian Legend]

ReconTeam wrote...

I must admit that I am a bit disappointed by the lack of Total Recall quotes in this topic.

I just thought, will your moon colony end up to going to war with Mars?

[Inquisitor Recon]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

I must admit that I am a bit disappointed by the lack of Total Recall quotes in this topic.

I just thought, will your moon colony end up to going to war with Mars?

Probably as Mars is our first planned expansion.

[TEWR]

I'd like to colonize Mars, certainly. But I still think the Moon would be the first viable step in life outside of Earth.

Baby steps. Build a moonbase, then work on colonizing Mars.

[ImperatorMortis]

Never returning to earth? A smaller population? Not having to worry as much about ****ty wars? 

If I had the money I would totally sign up. Screw this planet. 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 27 novembre 2012 - 03:22 .

[LTD]

Ok guys
Precisely 34 secs ago I started another project to colonize Mars..I'm cheaper. Just 100.000 and you are in! We depart around 1.10 2019

PM me with your credit card details and I'll just help myself

Kind regards,
LTD, Chief Engineer of Life On Mars Operation

Modifié par LTD, 27 novembre 2012 - 03:47 .

[Wolfspawn]

Sorry. I have to put this here.

[Cyberarmy]

Suddenly i remembered Dark Colony.

I aint go nowhere!

[Squiggles1334]

I would laugh so hard if a permanent Mars colony turned out to be nothing but a big white sausage fest of fedora-wearing nerds

[TEWR]

bob_20000 wrote...

Sorry. I have to put this here.

Very apropos