Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Mars

Meet a Group of Aspiring Mars Colonists 130

Posted by samzenpus
from the first-wave dept.
Velcroman1 writes "The group was down to Earth — but not for long, they hope. These folks want to go to Mars. 'I want off the planet – I want humanity off the planet,' declared Leila Zucker, 45, also known as 'Dr. Leila,' because she is, in fact, a doctor who works nearby in the emergency room at Howard University Hospital. She has yearned to be an astronaut — and a doctor — since the age of 3, she told FoxNews.com. 'One dream fulfilled, one to go,' she said happily. Zucker joined not a million, but 100 or so 'aspiring Martians' from across the country, one with green hair and costume antennae, for a 'Million Martian Meeting' held Saturday in Washington, D.C., which was sponsored by the Facebook page of the same name. The group came together as applicants of the Mars One project, an ambitious 10-year plan for a one-way trip to colonize the Red Planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meet a Group of Aspiring Mars Colonists

Comments Filter:
  • If they want it so bad, then by all means, let's toss 'em in a rocket and aim for the Red Planet.

    • Re:Let's let them. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by i kan reed (749298) on Monday August 05, 2013 @12:53PM (#44478437) Homepage Journal

      And who will pay for this rocket? Just putting a person in space is extraordinarily expensive, shooting them all to Mars is mind-blowingly expensive, and even if they're crazy people with absurd dreams(are they?) you'd want to get something for doing it.

      • by wjh31 (1372867)
        if you look at the introductory video on the mars one website, it seems the intention is to fund the project through 'media'. The mars colony will essentially become an unending series of big brother
        • And being "canceled" has a literal meaning as well as figurative...
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy (595695)
          I would probably think that it would end quite quickly. With no way to send additional supplies, I don't think they'd last long on the martian surface. Even small problems could turn potentially deadly really fast. Also, shows like "Big Brother" work well for TV by the precise fact that they are very cheap to produce. The "Winner" gets half a million dollars. Most actors on popular sit-coms get paid more than that per episode. This is why you see so much reality TV. I wonder if they even have the bandwid
          • by tekrat (242117)

            I'd pay to see them slowly die from starvation or lack of O2. I mean, that would be a TV first I think to have a reality TV show where the people get hypoxia.

          • Re:Let's let them. (Score:5, Informative)

            by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:00PM (#44479137)

            With no way to send additional supplies

            New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.

            Also, shows like "Big Brother" work well for TV by the precise fact that they are very cheap to produce. The "Winner" gets half a million dollars. Most actors on popular sit-coms get paid more than that per episode.

            These aren't actors, and they aren't getting paid. Their job is to set up a colony on Mars. They don't exactly need money.

            I wonder if they even have the bandwidth to send back TV quality signals from Mars. What happens when it's on the far side of the sun? They will need to set up relay satellites to ensure they can always get a good signal.

            They've done a feasibility study which consulted space experts from around the world. I'm pretty sure things like bandwidth and receiving a signal would have been high on their discussion list, considering that's how the project gets funded.

            If you want to read more about it before poking holes in what they plan to do, you can check their FAQ [mars-one.com] or road map [mars-one.com]. The road map calls for 2 video streams by 2021, 2 years before people land, with a minimum of 4 streams by 2025, when the second team lands. The habitat (6 landers) and 2 rovers will already be on the planet by the time the first team lands, with 5 more landers just a few weeks behind them. Communication will go through a satellite orbiting Mars, and presumably there will be a relay satellite at one of the L4 or L5 points.

            Even then I've seen lots of pictures from the Mars but I don't think I've seen too many videos.

            That's because transmission of video from Mars has never been a priority. Here, it's a priority.

            • With no way to send additional supplies

              New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.

              Paid for by what? Are the architects of this plan hoping that the general population will feel some responsibility to keep them alive, at our own cost, once the advertising money dries up? Let me tell you:

              1. This is not a universally interesting product, and even those who are interested aren't really interested in the minutae and routine drudgery of life in a spaceship or hollowed out hole in the ground on Mars. People lose interest quickly.

              2.We move quickly to justify inhumane choices: if they send the

              • With no way to send additional supplies

                New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.

                Paid for by what?

                That's how their argument is circular.

                They say how, theoretically, the **first** Mars One can get out, 'media'...which sounds, theoretically, plausible....for **one** launch.

                Then, on the feasibility front, Mars One lists off a big erector set list of equipment....that again, could **theorectically** be plausible.

                But they don't say how the **other** launches will be paid for...their first method is out: no one is going to watch a tr

            • by Raenex (947668)

              These aren't actors, and they aren't getting paid. Their job is to set up a colony on Mars. They don't exactly need money.

              The FAQ you linked quotes 6 billion for the mission cost, and even that seems like a big underestimate. Advertising cannot pay for this. History has shown that the public quickly becomes bored with space missions once the novelty wears off.

        • if you look at the introductory video on the mars one website, it seems the intention is to fund the project through 'media'. The mars colony will essentially become an unending series of big brother

          Yes. We will get to watch them die in real time. Either crash landing on Mars or going insane and killing each other or committing suicide before they get there.. A one way trip to Mars seems fun and exciting until you get 75% of the way there and the reality sinks in that you're going to die very soon.**

          **Due to the fact that we still don't know how to safely land a vehicle full of people on Mars.

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          Show me any series that makes billions of dollars. The series probably would not even pay for the interest on the capitol expended to get the players to Mars.

          • by Salgak1 (20136)
            Dammit, Jim, we need the Enterprise NOW!!!! Mind you, it took 50 years for Star Trek to make billlllllllyuns and biiiiiiiiiiiiillyuns of dollars. . .
        • Well, few show are making more than 4 seasons. Supposed they are really entertaining on Mars, which we can doubt since they will rather than be depressive, anyway, suppose they are really entertaining, they make make 6 seasons on TV. What else after that? Do you really think we will sustain such an expedition forever? What if the company go bankrupcy before even the first cycle of two years? Clearly this is a ticket to die in short term for those engaging in such a program without any guarantees and without
      • by Anonymous Coward

        What we get is them being off our planet.

        • by Salgak1 (20136)
          Getting VOLUNTEERS off the planet is EASY. How can we shoot the politicians to Mars ????
      • you seem to be assuming a lot about the objective of my plan. I wasn't proposing an airtight spacecraft with safety mechanisms of any significant kind, nor an actual survivable landing, much less actual colonization equipment. I wasn't even planning to properly chart a trajectory. Iron sights on the current location of Mars or any other convenient star, cloud, or passing jetliner an hour before launch will suffice.

      • by Jeremi (14640)

        And who will pay for this rocket? Just putting a person in space is extraordinarily expensive, shooting them all to Mars is mind-blowingly expensive, and even if they're crazy people with absurd dreams(are they?) you'd want to get something for doing it.

        We're going to cut costs by not putting any fuel in the rocket. Then at launch time we'll anesthetize the crew, attach video screens over the ship's viewports, and move the rocket to the middle of the Australian Outback. Two years later we'll remove the video screens and see how long it takes them to figure out what planet they are on.

        Now that will be quality TV!

  • 'I want off the planet -- I want humanity off the planet,' declared Leila Zucker ...

    If what she means is getting the entire (future) population off the planet, Randall of xkcd explained why that ain't gonna happen [xkcd.com].

    The uncomfortable truth is that, while colonizing the Solar System may be plausible, evacuating Earth is not. This planet is not, in fact, disposable.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday August 05, 2013 @12:53PM (#44478431) Journal

      "This planet is not, in fact, disposable."

      Strictly speaking, the fact that it cannot be evacuated does not make it indispensable, except to the people who are going to be left behind.

      • by Jeremi (14640)

        Strictly speaking, the fact that it cannot be evacuated does not make it indispensable, except to the people who are going to be left behind.

        Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

        • Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

          Dramatic, action-packed. Bold and original in its presentation of breaking the fourth wall as a political act. 'Audience participation' element perhaps too intense for some.

    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday August 05, 2013 @01:17PM (#44478701) Homepage
      We don't really need to move the entire population off the earth, we just need to move enough people to sustain the species once we find a suitable new home. There haven't always been 7 billion people on the planet You could probably quite easily rebuild the population of earth on another suitable planet in a few hundred years if you started with 100,000 people. Just take a look at this chart [truthmove.org] to show how fast you can actually increase the human population.
      • by SirGarlon (845873)
        It depends on what your objectives are. If you want to make the human race resilient to a major catastrophe Earth (say a dinosaur-killing meteor) then a few city-sized colonies throughout the solar system will suffice, and I agree that's quite plausible. If you want to provide a high quality of life for as much of the population as possible, then moving everyone to greener pastures is not really an option. I was just trying to argue against the assumption that colonizing space and sustaining most of the pop
        • It depends on what your objectives are. If you want to make the human race resilient to a major catastrophe Earth (say a dinosaur-killing meteor) then a few city-sized colonies throughout the solar system will suffice, and I agree that's quite plausible.

          Actually, in those circumstances, the Earth is still by far the most liveable place in the solar system, even in the days immediately following the strike. So the best strategy, in the event of an impending strike, is to stay here.

      • Can you be specific about what happens to the people who remain on earth?
    • by ka9dgx (72702)

      Actually, we could [wikipedia.org] do it. Here's a video of a prototype [youtube.com] using high explosives to see if the concept would work at all. It turns out it's fairly self correcting for alignment, etc. The nuclear physics is well understood, and the launch of a 4000 ton vehicle (with 1300 tons of cargo!) would result in the equivalent fallout of a single 10 megaton H bomb.

      It's time to send a few hundred volunteers to the Moon, Mars, and wherever else they want to go.

  • by instagib (879544) on Monday August 05, 2013 @01:05PM (#44478551)

    I don't agree with the negativity of the first comments. Personally, I would gladly redirect a significant part of my taxes to an endeavour like this, instead of sinking money into less forward thinking bottomless pits the politicians created.

    A one-way trip to Mars means sacrifice, and I applaud them - if they really mean it and won't chicken out the day of lauch. It would be an incredible exciting exploration and proof of concept.

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      A one-way trip to Mars means sacrifice,

      I disagree. To me it means giving people an opportunity to something they want to do that has never been done before. It is a sacrifice if you don't want to do it but see it as a better thing for other people. I see little or no benefit from an outpost on Mars. To me it is just another pit to throw money into. My question is what will they do when they get to Mars? All I see them as is glorified tourists supported by the hard working people of Earth. The scientific discoveries can be done much less expensi

      • The reason to go to a different planet in general is because, eventually, the earth will get destroyed. There will be an apocalyptic event, and almost nothing on earth will survive. So, we need to begin planning for that eventuality. For the same reason we do backups, we need to learn to live on mars.

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          That would be true if we had the technology to create a self sufficient colony on Mars. We do not have that technology yet. At best an outpost on Mars would last a few years if a catastrophe wiped out Earth. The less than 100 people that we can afford to support on Mars is not a viable gene pool. Mars is not a "life boat". I agree we need to plan but throwing money into a project that has no chance of becoming self sufficient is not progress.

          To take your backup analogy a step further,.why make backups when

          • Ofc we have the technology to have a self sufficient colony on mars.
            We only lack the funds to shoot all the stuff needed over there.
            It is a matter of scale. The stuff we need to let 10 people live there indefinitely perhaps only need a 10% increase to let 100 people live there.
            So perhaps you mean a growing population that builds new houses/domes. Then they need the tools and factories to build the materials for that.
            So we hae to scale again and send more stuff to Mars.
            However that is fully in our technologi

            • by jklovanc (1603149)

              Then they need the tools and factories to build the materials for that.

              Things wear out and chemicals are used up. If we have to continually send supplies to Mars they are not self sufficient. That polymer door seal that wears out needs to be replaced somehow. That suit that is abraded every time it leaves the hardened shelter will eventually need to be replaced. Without the ability to replace things like that on Mars an outpost will continue to be dependent on Earth. There is a big difference between Earth and Mars. On Earth, if something does not work exactly right one can ma

              • Most things you mention can be made from CO2. They don't really need aluminium and rare earth materials. At least not imediatly.
                Ofc, building up a permanent settlememt needs thinking. Hence my simple example. As you surely don't want to sent a real factory there (regardless for what) but the stuff to be able to set up your own manufactoring equipment.

      • by jxander (2605655)
        [quote]The scientific discoveries can be done much less expensively with probes from Earth[/quote]

        Are you sure about that?

        Of course, sending an individual probe will be less expensive than each individual human ... but you have to balance that against the amount of work that each would accomplish. Tomorrow is the 1 year anniversary of Curiosity landing on mars. In that year, it has traveled a whopping 700 meters, and snapped a few pictures. Something a human astronaut could have accomplished in a day.

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          The cost if getting a team of humans on the ground could be 1000 times the cost of sending a go cart sized rover. We could send 500 probes and still save money. Also the human could only spend a few hours per day outside in the Martian atmosphere before having to return to the radiation hardened shelter. So yes there would be one very well surveyed spot on Mars but not much more. The multiple probes could cover much more ground.

          I am not saying iy will never happen but limping out there with today's technolo

        • by Jeremi (14640)

          Something a human astronaut could have accomplished in a day.

          So, for the sake of argument, let's say a human can do things 100 times faster. On the other hand, if sending a human also costs 100 times more money, why not just send 100 robots and let them work in parallel? It costs the same either way, and gets the same amount of work done, but the robots are a lot less likely to die, and it's a lot less traumatic and controversial if/when some of them do.

          Once the robots have finished the construction of a nice research base, hotel, and spaceport on Mars, that would

    • You never ever think this could be a bottomless pit created by politicians?
  • when they get there....they obviously do not understand how bad Mars would be...
    • Amen to that. Mars is colder than the Earth's poles. Mars's air pressure is lower than the Earth's highest peaks.
      Can anybody name a place on Earth that is less hospitable than the most hospitable places on the surface of Mars?
      • by Bucc5062 (856482)

        Washington DC?

      • That is only partly correct.
        At the equator or middle latitudes in summer the temperature is +10 degrees and more.
        In the deepest valleys of mars the air pressure is like 300 millibar, a thied of earth air pressure on sea level (because mars has 10km deep chasms, that is deeper than the height of moint Everest)

  • by Squidlips (1206004) on Monday August 05, 2013 @01:23PM (#44478741)
    Send the middle managers, telephone sanitisers and hairdressers
    • by arielCo (995647)

      Nowadays, a reality show would fit the purpose just right.

    • Are you trying to kill us all? When we all fall prey to some fatal pandemic because somebody forgot to wash their hands before using a payphone, I'm placing the blame squarely on you.
  • To me, a colony is a settlement that will become self sufficient through production of goods or through trade. Since transporting things back from Mars far outweighs the value anything on Mars and the fact that there will always need for parts and supplies that can not be produced on Mars I do not see that happening soon. Another issue is the size of the settlement. Since the size is dependent on the pipeline of goods from earth it will not be large for a long time. Due to size restriction and continued de

    • To me, a colony is a settlement that will become self sufficient through production of goods or through trade.

      You're welcome to define "colony" however you want, as long as you allow the rest of us to continue using the dictionary definition.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      The goal of most of these sorts of projects is self-sufficiency on Mars, which fits your ideal of a colony. Indeed, you'd have to have self-sufficiency, given that the nearest source of help is 2 years away at best if anything goes wrong.

      Pulling this off would be the most difficult exploration or colonization effort humans had ever attempted, for precisely that reason of sheer distance. By comparison, colonizing the Americas was ridiculously easy.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        The goal may be self sufficiency but it is unattainable with current technology. There are too many parts to a habitat that can wear out and can not be produced on Mars.

    • I think video of themselves is their good, and they'll trade it to us in exchange for the other things they need.

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        The video will pay for less than 10% of their initial costs and none of their maintenance. There is also the fickle nature of the TV crowd. They will quickly get tired of watching the same people do the same things and have the same interactions day after day. Why do you think series like "Big Brother" have different casts each season. Swapping casts is not something viable on Mars.Another issue is that people sent to mars would be selected for their level headed attitudes and ability to live with others in

  • This is a society (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Sla$hPot (1189603)

    How can any organisation with a respect for it self, decide to send humans of to something that can only be described as a suicide mission.
    When will the cameras stop rolling?
    Will they continue to run when people start eating each others corpses while crying for help to the camera.
    Pl..pl.pl..please can't we have a rescue mission... weah, drewl, snot. nom nom nom.
    What a pathetic idea.

  • It's difficult to take TFA with much seriousness [ceasespin.org]. Laughably, the antenna are a nice touch.

  • The revolution is successful. But survival depends on drastic measures. Your continued existence represents a threat to the well-being of society. Your lives mean slow death to the more valued members of the colony. Therefore, I have no alternative but to sentence you to death. Your execution is so ordered, signed ...

    Maybe this is something they should screen for?

    I don't know if I would worry more about someone who knew the reference, or someone that never heard it before...

  • by notanalien_justgreen (2596219) on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:16PM (#44479293)

    I really wish people would stop posting MarsOne propaganda. It's a scam, pure and simple. It's been pointed out time and time again that their team is primarily artists and PR people. Just look here for yourself:

    http://www.mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/team [mars-one.com]

    Of the 7 people listed there's: an artist, an editor, a communication specialist, a communications director, and an MD. There's only 2 people who could conceivably have any expertise on getting to Mars.

    They did an interview (AMA) on reddit and were torn apart:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ufb42/ama_i_am_founder_of_mars_one_sending_four_people/ [reddit.com]

    STOP FEEDING THESE PEOPLE FREE PRESS!
     

    • by Kittenman (971447)
      Have to admit, I had my doubts when I saw "Fox news ... Science" in the link.
    • Right on. The idea that a private, non profit enterprise can get people to Mars in ten years using privately sourced technology on a shoe string of a few billion $ is so ridiculous it is tedious to enumerate all the reasons why it is ridiculous. The gullibility of some people who self identify as intelligent nerds...

      Apollo succeeded from going from one sub orbital human flight to a moon walk in about 8 years. An stupefyingly extraordinary project expeditated right on the edge of technological capability

      • by Jeremi (14640)

        Mars one will not repeat this achievement. It lacks the money, the people and the technology by an enormous margin.

        All you need is the right enabling technology and you can dramatically lower your mission costs. And the US government clearly has developed the necessary technology [wired.com], so it's just a matter of convincing them to share it with the Mars One folks.

  • 'I want off the planet – I want humanity off the planet,' declared Dr. Leila Zucker, 45, who works in the emergency room at Howard University Hospital.

    Isn't that much better?

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Working...