Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Will Mars be a One-way Trip?

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 08:56 PM
from the please-send-paris-hilton dept.
Mars Space Science
alexj33 writes "Will humans ever really go to Mars? Let's face it, the obstacles are quite daunting. Not only are there numerous, difficult, technical issues to overcome, but the political will and perseverance of any one nation to undertake such an arduous task is huge. However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite possible, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane's proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: One-Way Trip to Mars? by alexj33 (968322)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Will Mars be a One-way Trip? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Corpuscavernosa (996139) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @08:57PM (#22658404)
    ... shouldn't you at least PLAN on a round-trip ticket, assuming all the obstacles can be overcome, even if it's a long shot?

    • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rigrig (922033) <Rich@home.nl> on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:10PM (#22658530) Homepage
      You should at least pretend to do so, that way you'll have more volunteers.

    • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pvt. Cthulhu (990218) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:36PM (#22658752)
      a round trip isnt really feasible. the moon was a round trip because all they needed was the dainty little capsule to leave the moons gravity and reenter the earth's. a round trip to mars would require the vessel to have a mechanism for standing itself back up once it landed (to accomplish this with something like the space shuttle, you would need your one man to build the infrastructure of a launch site), and still have room for a second tank of gas. i believe it would be a better idea to first send a few drone ships to land and automatically prepare a base to receive humans.

        • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Informative)

          by tenco (773732) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @11:29PM (#22659602)

          It doesn't even qualify for being a planet based on the new rules (keeping its orbit clear of other stellar objects) -- Phobos and Deimos are evidence for that.
          FUD. Phobos and Deimos are moons aka satellites of Mars. And satellites have been cleared [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by schon (31600) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:45PM (#22658818) Homepage
      This whole article is stupid, and makes some of the most ridiculous comparisons imaginable.

      C'mon - comparing flying a single person to Mars with no chance of coming back is like Lindburgh flying to Paris??? Is he saying that Mars is populated with (to quote the Simpsons) cheese-eating surrender monkeys? Or maybe he's suggesting that upon arriving at Mars, the astronaut will have an unlimited supply of hot women and baguettes?

      And the whole 'constant communication' - umm.. last time I checked, Mars was between 3 and 21 light-minutes from Earth.. that means you say something, and get a response in a half-hour later.. yeah, that's really constant. It would be more like a video postcard than a conversation.

      This article is *really* poorly thought out.

    • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BlueStraggler (765543) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:56PM (#22658900)

      Round-trip tickets are only useful for tourists, and the real reason to go to Mars is to colonize it, not to take some snapshots and then go home again. We are doing that already with robots, so there's really no point in doing it with people.

      The interesting idea here is not the one-way thing, but the one-man, one-way thing. The author is right, it's initially kind of a shocking proposal, but when you stop to think about it, we're just a bunch of wusses. Our ancestors did this kind of risky one-way shit as a matter of course. (Think of how the Polynesians colonized the entire Pacific in simple canoes.) There shouldn't be anything shocking about it at all. We're just not worthy. Some other culture will do this, and we'll talk about how barbaric they are for trading so callously in the lives of their astronauts. But I guarantee the astronauts will go willingly, and while we tut-tut their backward ways and high mortality rate, they'll be conquering Mars.

      • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2008, @11:03PM (#22659424)

        We're just not worthy. Some other culture will do this, and we'll talk about how barbaric they are for trading so callously in the lives of their astronauts.

        Lucky we don't do anything barbaric or callous with the lives of our young people, like sending them to Iraq or something. So we might kill one cosmonaut or astronaut. Big deal. We kill hundreds of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, it doesn't even make the news headlines any more.

      • 1. Parent is dead on; wish I had mod points.

        Mars could already be a shorter trip (each way) - that we know MUCH more about, and have more ability to deploy resources for - than Magellan's was, just as an example.

        But, I have two opposing points:

        2. Think of the robots. Basically, we have robots now, which simply are better for this kind of exploring. So we don't need a human there to EXPLORE Mars (or the moon.) Obviously the current rovers are massively, massively cheaper than a manned mission... and I think we could get more done with hundreds of rovers than some dude. a) For any given cost, the robots will probably do the exploring better. In other words, I think we should send a person to Mars when it's economically profitable to send a _person_ there compared to the robots. We just don't NEED some guy to go there anymore.

        b) I think the cost involved in a human mission would be tremendous if the gain is largely symbolic. You don't go there just to touch it, you go there to find out a lot more about all sorts of things you didn't know.

        c) So the other reason to go there is to _colonize_ to really expand the scope of human life to a new place.

        c) in my opinion involves either: i) generate resources FROM Mars instead of spending a ton to be there or to ii) have a sufficient breeding population of humanity off earth that we'll survive a colossal extinction event. I believe i) will come before ii) AND I think i) is more likely to be done by remote control, too... or at least most of it. So wait for a NEED for a person - which personally I feel like will be a long time coming; the robots will get better faster than our ability to cheaply get a person there So maybe the first person will be a paying tourist.

        3. While I think Mars is close enough to be within reach, there are things we've skipped. I think all of the above applies to the moon, but I think it's so significantly cheaper to send stuff to the moon than to Mars. We're just finally going to put a telescope on the moon... For that matter, I think we should have orbiting solar power pretty soon.

        We only have like 3 people living outside our atmosphere. I think that's shameful in some ways... but there's no reason we need to "touch" Mars with a real person before we have commercial occupation of something closer / cheaper* - the technology we need for that to be sustainable - longer term, more sustainable, cheaper inhabiting of harsh environments - is something we can demonstrate much closer.

        *unless it turns out a person on Mars would help us mine something ridiculously expensive, or something. But a cluster of robots could have a higher chance of finding that for less money.

        I'd certainly accept that having the nice thin unbreathable atmosphere there might involve some cost savings in radiation damage/shielding, pressurization, etc. But that's only a justification if those costs are going to outweigh the much-higher lift costs and the much-lower chance of a bail-out.

        The good news is we're getting there - commercial boost to space is becoming practical, commercial space tourism is growing, and that means soonish a space hotel could be a reality - and as costs drop, hopefully attendance will increase. And by all means explore Mars extensively before we're ready to go there... just don't waste a ton of money on symbolism; spend that money wisely.

      • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Max Littlemore (1001285) on Thursday March 06 2008, @12:15AM (#22659898)

        (Think of how the Polynesians colonized the entire Pacific in simple canoes.)
        ...
        Some other culture will do this, and we'll talk about how barbaric they are for trading so callously in the lives of their astronauts.

        Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if another culture will do it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do it as a return trip.

        Other propulsions systems could make a round trip feasible by allowing solar powered launch. A culture that believes big, loud, exciting rockets are the only way to lift things into orbit, that will not commit any funding to alternative designs which work in computer simulations and have been around since the late nineteen eighties while supporting development of further rocket technology, that culture will fail to go much beyond the moon return.

        To take the canoe example, do you think the Polynesians powered their canoes by facing backward and throwing shit overboard?

      • Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tiger4 (840741) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:08PM (#22659016)

        McLane talks about psychology differences of current astronauts vs the US astronauts of the 1960s and the Russian cosmonauts.

        Spending time talking about how the old guys had the right stuff and spirit will carry them through and make the difference is just ya-ya silliness in place of real thought. That is the same kind of thinking that convinced the French that light artillery was just the ticket to face the German threat. The French assumed (naturally) that their soldiers could and would overcome any burden with their miraculous Esprit. Worked really well for them.

        Real "problems" have real solutions based in the real world. I disagree completely about the Right Stuff fluff, but in any case, today's astronauts are the ones you have. Deal.

  • Candidates (Score:5, Funny)

    by Reader X (906979) <readerxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:04PM (#22658470)
    I can think of at least two guys I'd like to volunteer for this duty. They'd be perfect, and they'll be available as early as January 21, 2009.

  • Now, this is the plan. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Riktov (632) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:25PM (#22658658) Journal
    Get your ass to Mars.

  • One-way trip? Sure! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by incognit000 (1201121) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:35PM (#22658730)
    Personally, I'd be honored for the chance to be the first person on Mars, even if it meant I'd only be there for a short while, and then die. I mean, as it now is, I really don't do much. I go to work, I go home. Eventually I'll die, and a few days after that, I'll be pretty much forgotten. It'll be like I was never here. But if I went to Mars, even if I died, well then at least what I did and where I ended up would be remembered, and that's as close to immortality as a human can get. I mean, some day I have to die. Why not die for some purpose?

    • Re:One-way trip? Sure! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Joe Tie. (567096) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @11:19PM (#22659538)
      Being in the realm of science fiction, you can bet that in a fit of irony an immortality pill will be invented shortly after you leave. One which can't survive the trip to mars. What a twist!

  • Lindbergh (Score:5, Informative)

    by fm6 (162816) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:42PM (#22658792) Homepage Journal
    Charles Lindbergh is supposed be the inspiration for this, but the guy knows jack about him. Lindbergh didn't set out to do a risky stunt. He was contending for the Orteig prize for the first aircraft to fly New York/Paris (either way) non-stop. Several previous attempts had ended tragically, and Lindbergh was convinced they failed because previous designers had not paid enough attention to various safety margins, especially those relating to weight and fuel. Thus he designed a plane that put fuel tanks in every conceivable space (including the place where any other aircraft would have had a windshield!) and did everything he could think of to minimize weight.

    That's why he flew alone: it's not that hard to stay awake for 36 hours, and so he saw a co-pilot as unnecessary extra weight.

    Ironically, he got lucky and didn't drift off course as much as he assumed he would, arriving at Paris with enough leftover fuel to continue to Rome. But he designed his plane on the assumption that he would not be lucky. He was a safety-first guy, that's why he succeeded where others failed. It ridiculous to associate him with this insane proposal.

  • Not quite right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:56PM (#22658902) Journal
    He is correct that it should be a 1 way mission. But he is wrong about the count. It should not include 1 person, but about 6 ppl. The reality is that the first party to go to mars should be focused on EXTENDING a base. The base should already be built by robotics. It would be fairly easy to do assuming energy. So where do get the energy from? 3 possible sources.
    1. Nukes is about our best bet. Sadly, ppl fight that. But the Japaneses system that is designed to support 10-100 MW would be ideal (20 MW, for 30+ years).
    2. Solar being beamed. A simple power sat above that beams down the energy. Probably not a bad way to disribute power around the planet, but I would not want to depend on it.
    3. Geo-thermal. There is some very good indication that there is heat close to the surface in several areas. That could change everything. Provide clean power and heat. I would still prefer the above as well.
    Once we have energy there, it is easy to have robots build. Even a remote control arm can work at burying several Bigelow systems. Once buried AND a garden is started for food, then we are good to go. There is no doubt that many ppl would volunteer. I know that If I were younger, I would.

    BTW, one weird idea would be to send a bunch of women and have them serve as incubators. In particular, if we send several missions of women AND zygotes, then we can grow a colony there. It may be a lot cheap approach to guarantee bio-diversity. In fact, I would think that once we have several small groups there, that we should send not just human zygotes, but also seeds and a number of animal zygotes. it would be useful for just in case.

    • Animal zygotes? (Score:5, Funny)

      by BalorTFL (766196) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:47PM (#22659306)

      BTW, one weird idea would be to send a bunch of women and have them serve as incubators. In particular, if we send several missions of women AND zygotes, then we can grow a colony there. It may be a lot cheap approach to guarantee bio-diversity. In fact, I would think that once we have several small groups there, that we should send not just human zygotes, but also seeds and a number of animal zygotes. it would be useful for just in case.
      Not to make any sweeping generalizations here, nor to imply anything about your pornographic preferences, but how many women do you know who'd be willing to give birth to livestock personally?

  • Werner von Braun's plan (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:10PM (#22659036) Homepage

    Werner von Braun's plan for going to Mars was published in the 1950s. It's worth reviewing it.

    1. Build a two-stage rocket that can lift reasonable loads to Earth orbit. The first stage, the big booster, is recoverable with parachutes. The second stage can re-enter on wings.
    2. Build a large number of these rockets, hundreds of them. This is the big difference from NASA's current one-off thinking.
    3. Build a big wheel-type space station in Earth orbit, using several hundred launches of the big boosters. This is the base for the Mars shot.
    4. Use about 400 launches (!) to move the Mars fleet of 14 rockets into Earth orbit, along with the necessary fuel.
    5. 14 rockets take off for Mars, with about a hundred people.
    6. The rockets land on Mars on wings. (This wouldn't work. Von Braun didn't have data on Mars' atmosphere. Back then, it was thought that Mars had maybe 20% of Earth's atmospheric pressure. The actual number is about 0.6%. This is a serious problem. We do not, in fact, know how to land a big load on Mars. The combination of heat shield and parachute used for small robotic craft isn't enough. Power is required, which means lugging fuel for landing.)
    7. A sizable base is built, exploration takes place.
    8. Some of the rockets return to Earth, to dock at the Earth space station.

    Ah, the good old days of industrial production. If China does a Mars program, it might look like that.

  • Orion spaceships, wimps! (Score:5, Informative)

    by sudog (101964) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:40PM (#22659240) Homepage
    You all are looking at this in completely the wrong way. The cost of getting stuff up into space doesn't have to be significant. We can send tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of crap up there relatively inexpensively, and the vehicle to do it would be reusable and have a significant lifetime. Just build an Orion spaceship. Piece of cake. We can send thousands of people up, tonnes of supplies.. heck we could launch an entire colony in one shot, and not really have to worry much about carefully conserving every gram of fuel.

    What's an Orion?

    Glad you asked: Orion Spacecraft Rule [wikipedia.org]

    Nuclear pulse propulsion behind giant push-plates on springs, man! With a payload measured by the tonne rather than the kilo!

  • The real justification (Score:5, Funny)

    by Captain Spam (66120) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:55PM (#22659376) Homepage
    Sure, the summary might make it hard to fathom the sheer loneliness and inevitable disposability of the astronaut in question, but it stops just short of the key element. Quoth Mr. McLane immediately afterward:

    "And to that end, I will humbly suggest the honor go to Dr. Horace Biggles, the professor in the office next to mine with lifelong dreams of exploration. I do not wish to toot my own horn and put on a humbler-than-thou air, but I am perfectly willing to forgo this amazing opportunity to my esteemed colleague. I am even willing to forgive him for his constant 'borrowing' of my office supplies, leaving the coffee pot empty, stealing every girl I have ever gone out with, and having the nerve to show me up at the space grant conference with his stupid, worthless moon buggy design that is so stupid and worthless and what're you gonna do with it on MARS, pretty boy? Huh? Yeah, let's see that Nobel Prize-winning super-efficient ventilation system of yours work in an iron-rich atmosphere! Advanced heat dissipation my ass!

    "In conclusion, Dr. Biggles would be the perfect person to shoot off to Mars, alone, on a one-way trip. I believe we can begin testing tomorrow, before he gets to the coffee machine."

  • Everyone dies, why not doing the extraordinary? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guidryp (702488) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @11:44PM (#22659700)
    I don't think analogies apply here, this is nothing like Lindburg, this is so far beyond that.

    Even without resupply and a likely limited lifespan (say two years) I would do it.

    Face it, most of us will lead mundane 9 to 5 insignificant lives and will likely die a forgotten death lingering in a hospital bed. Why wouldn't you trade that for a chance to blaze a completely new trail for humanity, to truly go, where no one has gone before.

    I am sure there are a lot of scientist who trade the rest of their life for 2 years studying Mars in person.

    Besides that, he is talking about sending company, resupply etc.

    On top of that, this would be a volunteer mission. I don't quite get the nervous nellies who have a problem with someone else making this choice. It might not be for them, but they should at least be able to realize that for some this is an inspirational idea.

    I just can't believe the amount hand wringing over this.

    Though I think it is immediately clear that this will never be done because of the tender sensibilities of the public. If even the slashdot crowd are getting bent out of shape, the general public would frothing at the mouth.

    We seem to be becoming a world of spineless weepy nannies.

    • Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:02PM (#22658456) Homepage Journal
      The human will be redundant in and of himself. He's symbolic, not operational!

      -Peter

        • Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chuck Chunder (21021) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:13PM (#22658548) Homepage Journal
          Our mortality!

          • Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:52PM (#22658852)
            Hooray, someone that gets it!

            Nobody else seems to be reading between the lines here. The person who accepts this mission is going to Mars to die. Whatever happens.
            We normally pick young, fit astronauts with their whole lives ahead of them. This proposed mission is philosophically profound and does have the potential to unite the world in a way that the original Moon landing did. The suggestion is a piece of genius!

            Getting to Mars is very difficult, but a return mission is bordering on impossible right now. So we pick a mature (read old), experienced astronaut who may be facing their last years and send them on the last and ultimate journey of a lifetime. The symbolism is not pointless, it is a statement of human fragility and mortality combined with enormous potential and sacrifice.

            If the first (and possibly last) man on Mars isn't top TV ratings I don't know what would be.

            Resonances of the Martian Chronicals here.

      • Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:25PM (#22658660) Homepage

        The reality of large Mars missions is that the human is only along for the ride, sort of like a color commentator, to help snare the public's imagination and more funding.

        Bullshit. If the mars mission is actually doing useful work, then having people physically there will make the work much more efficient. Humans on mars can make decisions in real time. The latency of radio signals makes trying to do anything significant remotely really obnoxious.

    • Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:12PM (#22658542)

      The guy would need a *lot* of support from earth. If it doesn't come during the launch window, fatal results.
      The astronaut wouldn't be the first mission sent. Send enough supplies for the astronaut to survive even if two consecutive missions failed to reach Mars safely, then send the astronaut.
      Or just send someone we don't care so much about. Perhaps someone whose name starts with 'D' and ends with 'arl McBride'?

    • Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ceroklis (1083863) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:30PM (#22658692)

      NASA does not sterilize probes it sends
      Sure: http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/pp/ [nasa.gov].

    • Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guardiangod (880192) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:53PM (#22658872)
      Biosphere 2 was an experiment to simulate earth's natural environment and be self-sustainable.

      The colony on Mars, on the other hand, needs only to be self-sustainable. This means that they can skip all the "pollinate with bees" crap and concentrate on producing O2 and food via artificial means.

      As for moon base, given the nature of the moon- ie radiation, micro meteor, lack of atmosphere, etc. I would say that while a moon base is easier to do in the short run, a Mars base has a much better chance of being sustainable.

      As for contamination- don't be silly, of course we have contaminated Mars. The question is, in what ways?

      • Sterile probes? (Score:5, Informative)

        by neapolitan (1100101) * on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:16PM (#22659070)
        >>NASA does not sterilize probes it sends.

        > Yes, they do.

        No, they don't. Please read up on what "sterilize" means and stop spreading misinformation.

        Oh, heck, you probably would have done it by now if you were going to.

        Sterilize = kill ALL bacteria. You can put something that has been sterilized in your bloodstream and not get direct infection or exposure to bacteria.

        Sanitize = kill bacterial to a certain threshold or standard, or kill harmful bacteria. You can lick something that has been sanitized and probably not get sick. However, if you cultured that hospital toilet seat, you can be sure you'd get bacteria.

        Bioload reduction = "We're pretty much sure that it is not covered in stool or loads of harmful bacteria, but beyond that can't say."

        It is almost impossible to build something the size of Mars rovers and have it be STERILE. Anything exposed to general atmosphere for over 20 seconds or so is no longer sterile. Even in the O.R. (which has special filters and a non-recirculating atmosphere) things exposed to the air for prolonged period are considered unsterile. If any of you guys worked in a bio lab, open up a can of L.B. broth, and walk away. After 20 minutes, recap it. What happens?

        I really appreciate whoever sent me the planetary protection link, and it confirmed what I thought. We are *very* concerned about bringing foreign / alien bacteria here, but it is just about impossible to keep us from spreading our own throughout the universe.

    • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bragador (1036480) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @09:28PM (#22658678)
      In the end everything is useless anyway but a mission to mars is fun for the whole species.

      See, instead of everyone looking at their navel, people will start raising their head and will start looking at the stars. Instead of having most people working for their own goals, people will start to share a dream. Instead of fighting each other, people will start to work as a team.

      I'm currently working in the field of psychology and even though I'm not high on the ladder, the calls I receive are about couples breaking up and people complaining of surviving instead of living. A lot of people are living without knowing what to do with their life and this is the kind of goal that might bring people together and give them something to do with their life even if in the grand scheme of things it is useless.

      Also, about the benefits, you can't go wrong with studying how to negate the effects of loneliness which apparently affects tons of people that live in cities. Also you get to fight back bone problems that are not that different from the problems aging people have. Of course, you also get the technologies for space travel but you don't care for that that much.

      So is it worth it ? I say sure, why not?

    • Re:Typical Slashdot misses the point (Score:5, Interesting)

      by molarmass192 (608071) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:09PM (#22659028) Homepage Journal
      I wasn't going to get involved in this but ... the upside is that your name would be etched into the annuls of history possibly to an even greater extent than Neil Armstrong's. On that note, even though it would contaminate the planet, I think the objective should be survival, even if there's no return trip planned. Landing, walking around, radioing back a few one liners, and downing a couple of cyanide pills doesn't do a whole lot for science. Who knows, with solar panels, a distiller, some farming equipment, plantings/seeds, and inflatable greenhouses, the first "Martian" may last a few years on an admittedly boring vegan diet. The trick would be finding extractable water and containing it. Even then, "restocking" drops could be sent every other year. Combating boredom would be another toughie ... is that Earth-Mars internet pipe up yet? :)

    • I agree; I volunteer you. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday March 05 2008, @10:44PM (#22659280) Journal
      No, seriously. I now have 2 children, and could not volunteer. But prior to that, I would done it quickly. In fact, on /., I have pushed for 1 way missions to mars for a long time, and before 4 years ago, I suggested that I would volunteer.

      This will not be a suicide mission. The ppl that go first, will be thought of like Leif Erickson, or Christopher Columbus (ignoring all the down sides on him). Even if my life were cut down to another 10 years, it makes the life worth living. I am amazed at the complete lack of balls on these postings. Our society has become WAY too soft. We no longer seem to put pride on our accomplishment, only on what we accumulate. That is a real sad state of affairs for the west and shows me a lot about us.

      I am truly glad that you have the balls and the foresight to see this for what it is; a chance to change the future. Hell, you would do more for earth than bill gates has.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.