Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Crew Ends 100 Day Mars Simulation in Arctic 147

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the wtb-beer-burger-and-companionship dept.
Paul server guy writes "According to Wired Science the seven person F-XI LDM crew that has been stationed at the Mars Society's FMARS station has completed their unprecedented 100 day simulation. (Actually 101 days, because for 37 they lived on 'Mars time' adding 39 minutes to each day) According to the mission's remote science principal investigator Chris McKay, of NASA Ames. 'Their pioneering simulation of crew operations on Mars time is by far the best work on this topic ever done. It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crew Ends 100 Day Mars Simulation in Arctic More

Crew Ends 100 Day Mars Simulation in Arctic

Comments Filter:

  • OK... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cp.tar ( 871488 ) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @12:38PM (#20320393) Journal

    So when do we send people to Mars?

    And do we send politicians first?

  • Well then (Score:4, Funny)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @12:43PM (#20320453) Homepage Journal
    Get your ass to mars.

  • Its not a simulation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @12:45PM (#20320485) Homepage
    Its a bunch of space nerds wasting their time.

    Why?

    The gravity is wrong.
    The solar radiation is wrong.
    The atmospheric pressure is wrong.
    The soil chemistry is all wrong.

    So what have they proved other than they can sit in a phoney "space base" for 100 days and run around in mickey mouse home made space suits? Nothing.

    • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NatasRevol ( 731260 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @12:48PM (#20320539) Journal

      Think of it more as a psychology experiment than a real space experiment. Maybe you won't be so testy then.

      Of course, if it were a real psychology experiment, they should have at least lived on Mars time the whole time, and not just for a third of it. Makes you wonder why they stopped using Mars time...

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 )
        "Think of it more as a psychology experiment than a real space experiment. Maybe you won't be so testy then."

        The Big Brother TV franchise has been throwing people together in a confined space for years but they didn't dress it up as any kind of space related simulation.

        • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:07PM (#20320801) Homepage Journal
          You're completely missing the point. It's not about whittling down a pile of celebrities or game show contestants, it's about making sure a group of intelligent people with a common goal of research can exist in the psychological environment they would need to on Mars. Once you've got that major factor nailed down as much as possible, then you can go to the trouble and expense of simulating the other physical variables.

      • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ookabooka ( 731013 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:06PM (#20320785)
        TFA said they used Mars time during the 24-hour sunlight, they simply covered their windows from 8am to 8pm. If they used Mars time continuously sunset/sunrise would slowly shift around and would probably really mess up their circadian rhythm.

        On a side not you are correct that it was more of a psychology experiment, though that wasn't the extent of their goals. They did things like try to figure out ways to minimize their water usage, etc. Basically anything they could simulate and figure out here on earth they did. Now when NASA says "Ok, how are we going to decrease water usage by 10%" they actually have a very well documented simulation to review through and see what works and what doesn't. Basically before this everything was open to conjecture, now we have tangible information to work with, though not 100% accurate to a real mars mission it is better than nothing.
        • TFA said they used Mars time during the 24-hour sunlight, they simply covered their windows from 8am to 8pm. If they used Mars time continuously sunset/sunrise would slowly shift around and would probably really mess up their circadian rhythm.

          So they could cover the windows to simulate nighttime, despite the sun shining, why couldn't they blast lights at the windows to simulate the day, even if it's dark outside. This seems like a rather trivial exercise to simulate the Mars day/night cycle. Am I missin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tknd ( 979052 )
        Well, if that's the case, when is this reality TV series going to air? What will be the title of the show? Survivor: Mars? The Mars Bachelors?
        • A reality TV show on a manned mission to Mars might be a profitable venture.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by veganboyjosh ( 896761 )
            From "To catch a predator: Mars edition", to air sometime in the next 15 years:

            Chris Hansen:Who are you here to see?
            Astronaut:Um...Stephanie?
            Chris Hansen:And how old is Stephanie?
            Astronaut:She told me she was 18.
            Chris Hansen:I've got the chat transcripts; wanna try again?
            Astronaut:Oh, you do. She said she was 12.
            Chris Hansen:And how far did you come to meet "Stephanie" this evening?
            Astronaut:Somewhere between 36 million and 250 million miles.
            Chris Hansen:...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by TheLink ( 130905 )
            Yeah, I told my friend to call it "Voted off the planet" or "Vote them off the planet".

            The voting options: keep, return and one-way.

            We can start with orbital missions first.
        • Big Water Brother.

      • Makes you wonder why they stopped using Mars time...

        Probably because they were getting too far off of the circadian rhythm. After 37 days of adding an extra 39 minutes to the day you're a whole 24 hours behind. I imagine on Mars the human body would adjust to the extra 39 minutes because it will actually be bright outside, just like you adjust to a different time zone after a couple days.

        • I imagine on Mars the human body would adjust to the extra 39 minutes because it will actually be bright outside, just like you adjust to a different time zone after a couple days.

          Agreed, though it can take than two days at times. When we PCSed to Germany, it took the family about two weeks to feel really comfortable. As I've gotten older, however, I've noticed an odd pattern in my own rhythm: Left to itself {free of time-critical concerns} my body likes a *36* hour day. That's 24 hours awake, with 12 asleep. I'm betting that a slightly longer day won't impact the astronauts' body clocks too much...

        • This is exactly right Paul. I'm one of them (the chief engineer).

          • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:4, Informative)

            by da' WINS pimp ( 213867 ) <dart27.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @02:52PM (#20321981) Journal
            Er, sorry I hit send too quick... We stopped the Mars Time experiment when we were one day off of Earth time so that we would not be too far off when the simulation was over.
          • Frankly, then, that seems awfully short sighted.

            Are the Mars explorers going to be allowed to use the Mars circadian rhythms or be forced to use Earth's? Why would the experiment try to do it half and half?

            So what if you're off of earth time? Both astronauts and ground crew will have to live with that on the real trip.

            • The astronauts will have their circadian rhythms reinforced by the Martian day. I don't see why the ground crews can't stay on Earth time with shift changes like they did with Apollo.

              Besides, with a 40 minute round-trip for communications, the reliance on the ground crew will be minimal. It will be like trying to get real-time tech support via email.

          • I'm one of them (the chief engineer).

            That is so freaking cool. If you guys ever need a networking guy/PC support/code monkey/wrench turner, look me up. I've been a Mars exploration enthusiast since I read Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars."

      • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:5, Informative)

        by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@gGIRAF ... minus herbivore> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:29PM (#20321049) Homepage
        If I think of it as a psychology experiment, I'd get even more testy. Long duration isolation experiments are old hat. Then there is real world experience like crews wintering over in the Antarctic. (Or head over to the US Sub Vets national convention - you'll find guys who have done 100 days submerged by the gross lot.) You have the 'closed loop enviroment/isolation' studies done a decade back by NASA, and you have Biosphere II as an example of how not to do it.
         
        Then there are stunts like 'living on Mars time' - which has already been done (by the Spirit and Opportunity control teams). Why would you do that? Why would you want to force your mission clock 'out of sync' with the local solar clock, except as a stunt?
         
        The simple fact is, the Devon Island station is nothing more than a PR stunt. Driven by Robert Zubrin's ego it has been a multiyear exercise in re-inventing the wheel. TFA is correct when it says 'Their pioneering simulation of crew operations on Mars time is by far the best work on this topic ever done. It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations.', but what it doesn't tell you is how abysmally *low* that standard is.
        • "Why would you do that? Why would you want to force your mission clock 'out of sync' with the local solar clock, except as a stunt?"

          The simple fact is you didn't read the (very short) article past the first paragraph, or you would have seen this:

          "Next to studying global warming, the coolest thing the crew did was take advantage of the 24 hours of summer sunlight in the Arctic to shift all their operations to Martian Time (a day on Mars is 24 hours and 39 minutes). The crew would simply cover the hab windows

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )

          If I think of it as a psychology experiment, I'd get even more testy. Long duration isolation experiments are old hat. Then there is real world experience like crews wintering over in the Antarctic. (Or head over to the US Sub Vets national convention - you'll find guys who have done 100 days submerged by the gross lot.) You have the 'closed loop enviroment/isolation' studies done a decade back by NASA, and you have Biosphere II as an example of how not to do it.

          As I understand it, NASA hasn't done any

          • As I understand it, NASA hasn't done any credible work on this subject aside from the space stations and some microenvironment experiments (eg, glass balls containing small self-sustaining ecosystems). Biosphere II with its many flaws is better than anything NASA has done. Russians have done probably the best work here.

            Biosphere II, with zero sucessful runs is better than the NASA experiments with three different (manned!) configurations, four sucessful runs, and over a year of total 'lock-in' time?

    • Re:Its not a simulation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:03PM (#20320749)
      So what have they proved other than they can sit in a phoney "space base" for 100 days and run around in mickey mouse home made space suits? Nothing.

      The true test would be a closed system here on Earth, with only energy input (from the sun or from a nuclear reactor). See if it can function for two years or whatever the required duration of a mission to Mars is without running out of air, water, or nutrient. It doesn't have to be absolutely sealed like Biosphere 2 -- it could exhaust, just not take in, and it doesn't have to be in the same state at the beginning as the end; resources can be depleted. But THAT's the kind of experiment that we should be running.

      -b.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
        The true test would be a closed system here on Earth, with only energy input (from the sun or from a nuclear reactor). See if it can function for two years or whatever the required duration of a mission to Mars is without running out of air, water, or nutrient.

        Sorry, but that would be a fairly useless test. Getting the amount of consumables right is a matter of doing some math and adding appropriate safety margins. Plus, we have plenty of experience in outfitting space missions already. At least if we sti

    • It was a simulation (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      A simultation is doing something as close as possible. NASA went through very similar things about going to the moon, and IIRC, it was done in Texas. Even now, every mission to the ISS, is done in water to simulate low gravity. However, if they really WANTED to simulate, they would change a few parameters.
      1. It should last 1-3 years. No way will the first mission to mars be 100 days. It will be several years.
      2. They should be working with biosphere 2 folks to do it again, as a closed experiment. For several ye

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Billosaur ( 927319 ) *

        Except that a preliminary Mars mission profile says that one possible mission is a short stay, 30 to 90 days [nasa.gov]. Now, you might ask why you'd go all that way and not stay longer, but realize that we'll be landing on a world we've never been to (not counting robotic probes) and while we are confident we understand the environment, we don't know how much conditions on Mars will differ from simulations. It will important for the first mission to be long enough to justify the expense while at the same time short e

        • NASA says that it will be short. But that has more to do with costs to go there. In particular, they are worried about losing a crew there (which politically could hurt NASA). More likely, whoever goes there first, will build a forward base using robots. I would expect that it would be several bigelow stations that were proved on the moon, as well as the beginning of a in-ground station. In addition, the base will be active for at least 1 year. Then and only then, will we send a crew for no less than 2 year
        • Erm, ok I'm going to try and not sound trollish for once. Did you understand the post you replied to, and did you read the article that you linked to? The round-trip time for the 30-60 day mission profile is estimated at 400-650 days. Which is exactly in the range that the GP proposed such an experiment should last. Because the crew are going to be just as confined and isolated on the trip as they will be on the surface.
          • Billasour is correct in what he thinks I was saying (weird to put it that way). I simply do not believe that NASA is not going to do the short stay version. The stress on the crew will be MUCH higher then if they spend a couple of years on Mars. This is more probable since we doing the moon first rather than Mars. We will no doubt build the lunar base via robotics in the same manner that I mention for Mars (bigelows units down first; connect them; then dig and create a subterrain base). The lunar base will
            • Aha, in that case it was I that misunderstood you (and apologies to Billasour). Although what I thought you were saying still makes sense. No matter which profile they go for, the length of time away from Earth is substantial. Simulations into the effects of long-term spaceflight should take that into account. Also, the closed system environment is still an interesting challenge, and I'd like to see anyone who could maintain a local ecosystem for the entire duration of a mission.

              As far as what you were actu
              • Yeah, being in close quarters on the space ship will get old after a month. It will be 7 month journey. These folks will be eating at each other. Even on the outbound trip, they will likely be at each other. I suspect that if we start the base first (with lessons learned from the moon), we will see our first trip last the 2 years, and then after that, we will probably see a 10 year or even a lifetime crew. I know that ppl here think that nobody will go there for a lifetime, but that is silly. We have 6 bill

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by TheLink ( 130905 )
                  Oh there can be a lifetime crew alright... Just for smaller values of lifetime.

                  As for colonization, why would you colonize a planet like Mars once you've figured out how to keep humans alive in space for a long time? It's not like Mars is very much better. Might as well stay in space and just send a few people down when necessary.

                  Embryos are a weird idea. Why not sperm instead?

                  Anyway this sort of simulation stuff is a silly waste of time, NASA et all should just stick to picking candidates from nuclear subm
                  • Why Mars? Gravity, space, protection, independence from earth, and easy access to resources come to mind.

                    Embryos allow for needed genetic diversity. If you do sperm only, then you are limited to just the number of women there.
                     
    • What space nerd would refuse to participate in an "F-XI LDM" crew at the "FMARS" station?

      Being cooped up as part of a large crew for an extended period seems important enough to not deserve your ridicule. The ISS crew is only three people. At least we have some data from the ISS about long term effects of (zero) gravity, (zero) atmosphere, and (plenty of) radiation, with Mars being somewhere between space and Earth in those respects.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RockyPersaud ( 937868 )
      The value of the experiment is the fact that these seven scientists and engineers DID NOT just sit in a chamber for 100+ days. They conducted real exploration of Devon Island and the Haughton impact crater, under constraints similar to what a crew would have to do on Mars. The gravity is wrong. But they weren't doing physiology experiment on the effect of gravity. The solar radiation is wrong. But they weren't doing solar radiation experiments. The atmospheric pressure is wrong. But they weren't doing

    • Soil chemistry? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 )
      It's not like they are supposed to get scientific results back the same as on Mars - part of what they are doing though is living in the same islotation, and working outside in realistic suits just as they would be on mars. They are seeing what works with transportation and tools that can be operated when you have to maintain a reasonable level of isolation from the environment around you. Working the Arctic helps because you are approximating the cold temperatures on Mars.

      As for gravity, it's not like th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 )
        "part of what they are doing though is living in the same islotation,"

        Why didnt they just ask the Navy - they have these things called submarines.

        "and working outside in realistic suits "

        You're joking right?

        "very solid level of gravity that is comparable"

        Its one third G. If you were 1/3 your current height would you think it comparable to what it is now?

        "What you don't understand about the Mars people is that the end goal is a private mission to Mars - why wait around for the government? And, they have a re
        • Why didnt they just ask the Navy - they have these things called submarines.

          Which you can't work outside of on dry land. I guess that would explain though why your ideas were all wet.

          You're joking right?

          What's unrealstic about the suits they use. The design is based on real space suits, but tailored to the fact there is not an absolute vaccuum nor temperatures as near to absolute zero to contend with.

          Its one third G. If you were 1/3 your current height would you think it comparable to what it is now?

          Heigh

  • Still very far away (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JakeD409 ( 740143 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @12:45PM (#20320497)
    "It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations." The fact that it says "for future Mars mission simulations" instead of just "for Mars missions" shows how far away we really are.

    • "It sets the standard for future Mars mission simulations." The fact that it says "for future Mars mission simulations" instead of just "for Mars missions" shows how far away we really are.

      Which doesn't surprise anyone actually familiar with the technology and the process. Contrary to the beliefs of many in the space fanboy community we are far from ready - but the problem isn't the technology, but because while much of the research has been done, almost none of the development has. Or, as I've pointed o

    • obligatory... (Score:2, Funny)

      by whopub ( 1100981 )

      The fact that it says "for future Mars mission simulations" instead of just "for Mars missions" shows how far away we really are.
      True. Especially if you consider they simulated the moon landings so thoroughly and then ended up not going there...

      *ducks for cover*

  • And now that I've read TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cp.tar ( 871488 ) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @12:46PM (#20320509) Journal

    Melissa adds that the extra 39 minutes does make a difference, "[you] feel like [you're] getting more work done."

    Wasn't it that the optimal duration of a day for humans is somewhere around 25 or 26 hours?

    I always try to maximize my awake time; as Pitr would say, Sleep, she is for the weak.

    And now for one truly scary detail:

    "We've all become acutely aware of the importance of water conservation, minimizing our garbage output, and generally behaving in a way to minimize our environmental impact."

    Why is this scary? Well, consider this:

    The crew bakes bread, makes a batch of cheese or yogurt, waters the "crops" (spouts and lettuce they are growing), re-fuels the generator, washes a bit of laundry by hand and prepares home cooked meals to add some spice to the day and the meals.

    They're training Fremen!

    • Mau-di! Mau-di! Mau-di! Mau-di! Mau-di! Mau-di! Long live the fighters of Muad'dib!

    • The thing that really scared me was this:

      extreme space exploration can help make living sustainably sexy

      I think they meant that sustainable living would look sexy, not that space exploration gives you Priapism.

      • I think they meant that sustainable living would look sexy, not that space exploration gives you Priapism.

        Speaking {out of my tailside} for the male space geeks, I'm pretty sure most of us would have a chubby upon reaching space that wouldn't die 'til we got back to Earth.
    • Well, that's okay, because I hear ESA is training one young 'Paul Atreides'.
    • Why is it scary that they are training hardy survivors who can overrun even the greatest forces of the Imperial army and can hitch a ride on Shai'Hulud? I mean, that sounds pretty damn cool, where can I sign up?
    • The Spice Must Flow

  • Self Reliant? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by cez ( 539085 )
    From TFA:

    It harks back to the post last week from WorldChanging.com about how extreme space exploration can help make living sustainably sexy. As Commander Battler says it, "we've all become incredibly self-reliant, and developed many other interesting, useful skills and attitudes, thanks to our isolated home in the Arctic!"

    How does living entirely in a prefabbed environment make anyone self-reliant? Is she saying... "ohhh I can work out my problems now with meditation instead of crying over drinks wit

    • I would think this experience would lend itself more towards group initiative and synergy to get by than "self-reliant". I mean come on, they are probably told when to eat, sleep and fart by a NASA computer.

      Actually, absolute control from Earth would be impossible on a real Mars mission -- there's a lag time of about 3 min (one way) for radio communications, because of the speed of light. It's not going to be like one of the low earth orbit Shuttle missions.

      -b.

      • 3 minutes when Mars and Earth are at their closest point. 20 minutes or so when they are further apart :)
    • You aren't questioning the computer are you?

      Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend.

  • Finally they can get back to mom's basement (Score:5, Funny)

    by netsavior ( 627338 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:04PM (#20320755)
    It must have been hard living in a pre-fab environment never seeing the sun and wearing the same clothes for days. Now they can go back to their mom's basement where the conditions will be at least slightly different from a mars mission.
  • The test probarly produced results known decades ago. The main problem - effects of long human exposure to microgravity are still barley known. It resembles some similiar tests that were conducted , that as it was revealed were fraudy and had little scientific results

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gardyloo ( 512791 )

      The main problem - effects of long human exposure to microgravity are still barley known.
      On the other hand, the effects of barley (along with hops) on me are well known, and I like 'em.

  • Why 37 days? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:21PM (#20320957) Homepage Journal

    $ expr \( 37 \* 39 \) / 60
    24
    That's how long it took to lose a day. So when do they get that day back?

    Ha.

  • Why all the disappointment? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Natros ( 985857 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:50PM (#20321283) Homepage
    I can't believe how many people seem to think this was a pointless waste of time. Sure, it's a very limited simulation, but it's a very good proof-of-concept study, and hopefully provided additional data on the psychological stresses that would be placed on a team of astronauts trying to establish an extraterrestrial base. By all means, they should incorporate more variables (true self-sufficiency, extended duration, etc) in future studies, but let's applaud an effort to study the human factors involved in space exploration.
    • hax0r_this already said that in an earlier comment, but it's worth repeating: they should make all communications go through a device that will delay them by a few minutes; I expect that it should also vary from 5 to 20 minutes to simulate Mars and Earth being in various parts of their orbits. This should add a lot to the emotional feeling of being far away from the rest of humanity.

  • Not much point if you can't get there -- (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @01:50PM (#20321287)
    No one knows how to land anything big enough on Mars anyway [universetoday.com]

    • Problem Solved (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mooterSkooter ( 1132489 )
      "But while the Apollo lunar lander weighed approximately 10 metric tons, a human mission to Mars will require three to six times that mass, given the restraints of staying on the planet for a year. Landing a payload that heavy on Mars is currently impossible, using our existing capabilities" Well, I see a simple solution; Build a spacecraft that splits into several separate parts (of approximately "10 metric tons") before entry! Problem solved.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RESPAWN ( 153636 )
        Exactly! Or if we are sure we can guide landing of objects fairly well, why not just ship unmanned payloads to Mars ahead of time? It would require some long term planning, but as long as you were able to land the payloads reasonably close to each other, there's no reason you couldn't send them ahead of time. Then all you need is to send the astronauts at the end along with a "pick-up truck" to pick up the various payloads and bring them back to base camp.

        (On a side note, I wonder if any of the major aut

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )
      I've heard this complaint before. The answer is that we do have some ideas. For example, retrorockets or using inflatable structures or parachutes to vastly increase the surface area of the landing vehicle so that we can decelerate through multiple passes in the Martian atmosphere.
      • Why not using an Orion-like technique? After all, it is known to be a very efficient technique, just non-practical in earth athmosphere because it would fry any non-protected electronics in several countries.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )
          I don't care how it's done, just that it's done. I do find questions about how to do something to be better than questions about whether it's possible.

  • One way mars mission? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eniac42 ( 1144799 )
    Sadly, its going to be a long long time before it happens for real. Zubrins "Mars Direct" plan http://www.cbqc.net/mars/docs/md_reno.txt [cbqc.net] is the best one using current tech - but it has so many possible ways it can fail that it will not be picked up by todays ultra risk-adverse space admins. The biggest mistake NASA ever made was to ditch the Saturn 5 and 1b systems that took Apollo to the moon - the Skylabs sent up with the later Apollos already did most of the usedful research being being replicated by the

  • The final transmission from the facility indicated some kind of alien bacterial infection had gotten to the crew. Later entries were limited to screaming and gun shots.

    NASA declared the test a spectacular success.

  • 1903 version of Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TED Vinson ( 576153 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @02:23PM (#20321683)
    Bunch of Slashdotters scoffing at the Wright Brothers' so-called 'manned flight' experiments.

    "Their [sic] waisting [sic] there [sic] time!"

    "Amusing, but you'll never be able to get across the Atlantic using wings. Airships are the future!"

    "We should be putting this effort into improving the proven technology of steam locomotives."

    "Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those!"

    "I for one welcome welcome our new internal combustion powered, heavier than air overlords!"

  • I wonder which one is the: Bitch, Naive Girl-Next-Door, Surfer Dude, Homosexual, Playa, Joe Schmoe, Drama Queen
  • Just a sample of their recommendations for travelers to Mars based on their simulation:

    - Seals would be a valuable food source
    - Canadian TV is available
    - You'll need skis and a boat to get there
    - Igloos can be substituted for prefab shelters
    - If you need water don't worry, it'll rain/snow occasionally

  • 1000 days - Mars Ocean Odyssey (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slashmojo ( 818930 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:28PM (#20322347)
    There is a couple currently on a somewhat related venture.. they plan to spend 1000 days at sea in a yacht, completely self sufficient and never touching dry land for the duration.

    So far they are on day 121 and have had some 'fun' already - a collision with a freighter for example caused some significant damage which had to be repaired at sea.

    The idea obviously is to (kind of) simulate a very long space journey where the crew have only themselves and what they can carry to depend on.

    There are a few notable differences though such as the lack of fish to catch in space. ;)

    You can follow their journey here..

    http://1000days.net/home/ [1000days.net]

    Looks like a great adventure anyway.. wish I could take 1000 days off work!

  • Why on Earth... (Score:3, Funny)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:30PM (#20322373) Homepage Journal
    ...would they choose to simulate Mars in someone's attic. Most simulations of this kind are much better performed in the basement of one's parent's house.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Close