Slashdot Mirror


Company to Settle and Mine Mars

Rutgersen writes "Wired is reporting that a new startup is planning to colonize and mine Mars by 2025. From the article: 'The new company, 4Frontiers, plans to mine Mars for building materials and energy sources, and export the planet's mineral wealth to forthcoming space stations on the moon and elsewhere.'"

526 comments

  1. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't read the article. Someone tell me how they are going to achieve this.

    1. Re:How? by D'Sphitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you're interested in knowing maybe you should read the article

    2. Re:How? by Transdimentia · · Score: 2, Funny

      What did you say? I didn't read your response.

    3. Re:How? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I DID read the article. Someone please tell ME how they are going to achieve this.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    4. Re:How? by Alystair · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rumour has it that a little known company, Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC), is also funding the project! Even then Budget was too minimal, so HTSC (harsh terrain survival kits) and duct tape were cut off the budget.

    5. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol what?

    6. Re:How? by m4dm4n · · Score: 1

      I read the article, and I can definitely see them achieving this...

      The theme park part that is:
      One plan is to build a full-scale version of the planned Mars settlement and charge visitors to tour the "Mars Settlement Research and Outreach Center."

    7. Re:How? by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      First, their CEO is going to declare himself King of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat. Then he's going to take a ride on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato people, and beg for a pickaxe. Then, he will dig around endlessly until he finds the vault with a teleportation trap that leads to Fort Ludios. After slaying Croesus and a half dozen dragons, he'll take the money and invest it in a biotech company; that money will generate large amounts of biodata, which he'll exchange with Trade Master Greenish for a ride on the Inevitably Successful In All Circumstances to Mars.

      On the surface of Mars, he'll carefully scour the surface, dodging renegade robots and flesh-eating insects. Eventually, he will find Torg, the robot that kidnapped Santa Claus, and use him to mine the planet. Naturally, the rock will need to be loosened first with the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. Piling it up, he'll take the return trip through a Gate Corps gate, reenter Earth's atmosphere in a spaceship shaped like a Galleon, (insert missing step here), and profit.

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    8. Re:How? by mikael · · Score: 1

      You mean there's a currency exchange that will convert nethack zorkmids into US dollars?

      I've got about $100K gold pieces I'd like to exchange.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    9. Re:How? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Well, alrighty then.

      You should probably patent that process before some evil-doer tries to steal your ideas.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    10. Re:How? by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      How will they pull this off? They won't. The Zhti Ti Kofft would never tolerate it! Besides, I don't think they really intend to. It is just another plot to scam investors like buying land on the moon. Former California Governor Jerry Brown was nicknamed "moonbeam" for falling for that scam. They are looking for suckers, and there is one born every minute.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    11. Re:How? by Heem · · Score: 1

      you must first convert to spacequest Buckazoids

      --
      Don't Tread on Me
    12. Re:How? by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      Dont forget... when mining ore on Mars for use in building additional facilities, always protect your ore harvester from attack since it is essentially defenseless.

      If your ore harvester is destroyed, and you don't have the funds to build a new one, you must then sell existing buildings at only half the price you paid for them.

      Or, if you have Engineers, they can enter and take over enemy buildings, but Engineers are even more defenseless than ore harvesters. And remember you should *never* have your Engineers run directly across ore fields since the ore is poisonous.

    13. Re:How? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the games where you harvest "ore"(i. e. the Red Alert series), it's not poisonous. It's only poisonous when it's called Tiberium.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    14. Re:How? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      Ah, C&C, how I love you so

    15. Re:How? by QuadEddie · · Score: 1

      They will arrive to colonize the planet and find that Wal-Mart is already there.

    16. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.

      Given that story, you write anime for a living, don't you? Were you in PuniPuni Poemy or something?

    17. Re:How? by Cunk · · Score: 1

      As long as they don't skimp on the chainsaws.

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
    18. Re:How? by empaler · · Score: 1

      They're using the Phantom for training missions. They have a fully functional Mars Environment Simulator running on that thing. They plan to release this software for free with the Phantom (which already is set to ship with the next installment of the Duke Nukem series) to attract interest and money for their project while also preparing potential employees ("soldiers") to the harsh environment...

    19. Re:How? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Yeeeeeeeaaaahhhhhhh!
      [/rapper]

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    20. Re:How? by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Dude. I take my notional hat off to you. Brilliant.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    21. Re:How? by ultracool · · Score: 1

      Read "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. He explains how we can put people on Mars right now, entirely with technology we have already.

      It really isn't as far-fetched an idea as people make it seem.

      And wouldn't it just be awesome to go to another planet?

    22. Re:How? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that if I put enough obscure or semi-obscure references in there, there'd be a little something for everyone ;) Lets see: Firefly, Red Dwarf, Nethack, Star Control II, Red Planet, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, Looney Tunes, Cowboy Bebop, half a dozen old "Ship-like spaceship" animes, and of course, the obligatory "South Park" profit reference.

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    23. Re:How? by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1

      Isn't that "Profit!" reference due to The Simpsons (and the underwear gnomes IIRC)?

    24. Re:How? by Rei · · Score: 1

      "Profit!" and "Underpants Gnomes" are a South Park reference.

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
  2. More like it by phaetonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the kind of news I expect to read in 2005. Cool.

    1. Re:More like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What news? All I can see is "You need Macromedia Flash to view this shite.".

      1. Learn what a website is.
      2. Colonize whatever
      3. ???
      4. Taco's a fag!!!

    2. Re:More like it by Metteyya · · Score: 1

      There has been plans (even written down to level of details, like methods of aquiring methane and converting it to water) of colonizing Mars short after landing on Moon. So, this "kind of news" is present in media since early 70-ties.

    3. Re:More like it by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      I'll work for them when I can meet them for an interview on Mars...

    4. Re:More like it by Joe+Random · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure thing. We'll see you for the interview next week. My secretary will fill you in on the details. Oh, and one minor point, you're responsible for your own travel arrangemnts to and from the interview.

      I look forward to meeting with you.

      Sincerely,
      Mark Homnick, CEO

    5. Re:More like it by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No problemo, it has all been taken care off. It will be a priveledge working with such a great company that gets things done so well. See you there...Gusev Crater, then to the left of the Beagle 2 crash site, if I recall correctly...

    6. Re:More like it by CountBrass · · Score: 1
      During the first ever stock market bubble (the South Sea Bubble) a company, offering shares of course, was established to drain the Red Sea in order to recover the treasure lots by the Egyptians when Moses fled Egypt.

      This sounds like the equivalent scam for the 21st Century.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    7. Re:More like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and one minor point, you're responsible for your own travel arrangemnts to and from the interview.

      Alright - half done. I've got 900 empty jars of Burma-Shave. Who's got a return plan?

      http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mars.asp

    8. Re:More like it by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Funny

      There has been plans (even written down to level of details, like methods of aquiring methane and converting it to water

      OMG thank you so much for that info. I'm showing that to my g/f tonight to explain the streaks in my underwear.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    9. Re:More like it by anopres · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a great example of "What not to do with flash". Before they hire all those scientists, maybe they should invest in a webmaster that has a clue.

      --
      Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
    10. Re:More like it by websaber · · Score: 1

      Between going to mars and 7 Ghz laptops http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/ 07/1241216&tid=198&tid=184 It is really beginnig to feel like april fools day. Did I over sleep a few months??? Or mayby a few years.

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    11. Re:More like it by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Companies sprang up then just like the dot com bubble. I recall reading about one that promised free energy from perpetual motion. While Newton may have gotten scammed by the South Seas Company, I'm sure he didn't fall for that one.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    12. Re:More like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So, this "kind of news" is present in media since early 70-ties."

      Mmmmmhh..... seven titties. I don't want to think about why it is an odd number, though...

    13. Re:More like it by phxbadash · · Score: 1

      This is mars we're talking about here, home of the 3-titted women.

  3. The company is using futuristing computing also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear this company is using the following computers:
    6.8GHz 1TB RAM and 2TB HDD Laptop

    1. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by m4dm4n · · Score: 1

      Yup, they develop a time machine 20 years from now from the profits they make on mars and send back the necessary tech to make this happen.

    2. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that moderation only goes up to 5.

    3. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by visgoth · · Score: 1, Funny

      You must mean these things... my bullshit detector is going apeshit right now.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    4. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is actually a great idea because the laptop will have a dual use as the heat source for the ignition of their fusion drives.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    5. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude parent was joking.. And yes he was talking about those things.

    6. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 1

      6.8GHz 1TB RAM and 2TB HDD Laptop

      So that would be about the same time frame as 3.0Ghz PowerPC, right?

    7. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by kaellinn18 · · Score: 2, Funny

      my bullshit detector is going apeshit right now

      Wait, I thought that bullshit and apeshit were inherently incompatible. Is there some new framework available that allows easy portability between bullshit and apeshit? If so, has the company that created this masterpiece gone public? I would like to invest.

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    8. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's a shame that moderation only goes up to 5.

      And only down to -1
    9. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >futuristing

      George, don't you have better things to do like looking for another supreme court nominee?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    10. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is actually a great idea because the laptop will have a dual use as the heat source for the ignition of their fusion drives.

      They don't need a heat source for ignition, they use cold fusion.
    11. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by w98 · · Score: 1

      soan they use that to make ape batteries along with the cow batteries?

    12. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahahaha :) thanks for the laugh.

    13. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but everybody knows that fusion requires large amounts of very expensive tridium!

    14. Re:The company is using futuristing computing also by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      The scary part about that site is the link to this: http://cesweb.org/attendees/awards/innovations/rd_ 2005honorees.asp?category=48 - yes, that's right kids, they got an award in the Computer Components category at the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) for a completely fictitious product. A-fricking-mazing.

  4. Wow. by CynicalGuy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What a retarded idea.

  5. Numerials! by Tachikoma · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something about companies that have numerals in their names just makes them seem so reputable and trustworthy! I'm gonna sell my house and buy a butt-load of stock in them!!

    --
    i don't care
    1. Re:Numerials! by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Funny
      Something about companies that have numerals in their names just makes them seem so reputable and trustworthy! I'm gonna sell my house and buy a butt-load of stock in them!!

      It's safer to diversify. May I suggest that you invest half in them and half in our company -- 69ers Incorporated?

      (It's a mining company, of course.)

    2. Re:Numerials! by Proaxiom · · Score: 5, Funny

      I myself am a bit wary of investing in a company whose business plan consists of collecting lots of cash and taking off to Mars with it.

    3. Re:Numerials! by syrinx · · Score: 1

      yeah... I was just reading about this fly-by-night operation called "3Com"... hope no one got suckered into them!

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:Numerials! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Within a few years all this Mars stuff will be sold off to a firm in China and 4Frontiers will concentrate its resources on providing "web services".

    5. Re:Numerials! by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I know you are being sarcastic, but still I would have liked to have been an early investor in 3M or 3COM. Maybe its something about the number 3 as opposed to other numbers.

      Also, never invest in any company with one X in the name. (I worked for two failed startups with an X in the name.) Two Xes is OK.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    6. Re:Numerials! by WeenaMercatur · · Score: 3, Funny

      XXX Companies seem to do pretty well as well...

    7. Re:Numerials! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With their massive effort on R&D and construction, at least, hopefully, they will create lots of employment and creativity. That probably will be their greatest contribution to the humanity.

      Cheers.

    8. Re:Numerials! by Mr.+Mosty-Toasty · · Score: 1
      Something about companies that have numerals in their names just makes them seem so reputable


      The same goes for these news sites that have witty punctuation marks in their names...

    9. Re:Numerials! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's brilliant!

      You said it yourself: "...a company whose business plan consists of collecting lots of cash......".

      I can't wait to invest and get me a piece of this. If I get in at the start I'm gonna be RICH when they collect all that money off a bunch of suckers.....

    10. Re:Numerials! by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1

      Well Duh. That's because the magic of 3 is coupled with the magic of multiple Xs.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    11. Re:Numerials! by ReverendRyan · · Score: 1

      At least they're not the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC) - if they were, I'd start stocking up on ammunition now if I were you. Damn inter-dimensional gateways.

      (DOOM reference if you didn't catch that)

    12. Re:Numerials! by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      No problem there. I heard Weyland-Yutani Corp. has a secret biological weapon in store that we can use to combat inter-dimensional demons.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    13. Re:Numerials! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Constructing a futuristic mega-corporation out of a Western and a Japanese name is so 1988.

      Now Weyland-Huifang, that's a little more like it.

      For now, anyway.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:Numerials! by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      3M was called Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing for years and years before it was referred to as 3M. Old timers refer to the company as 'Minnesota Mining.'

      --
      resigned
    15. Re:Numerials! by biovoid · · Score: 1

      And what exactly are they going to do with the cash on Mars?

    16. Re:Numerials! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that whould be 1986.

    17. Re:Numerials! by DarkNemesis618 · · Score: 1

      Easy...play in the red sand...maybe some sandcastles are in order. They'd be rich, they wouldn't need to do anything *rolls eyes*

      --
      What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
    18. Re:Numerials! by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like 3-Com!

  6. Late Breaking News: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today bleak despair swept across our fair world when it was revealed by the Council that the invaders from the evil blue planet have formalized their invasion plans, and may arrive in force in as little as ten years.

    K'Breel, Speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:

    "Noble Citizens, I tell you that the disgusting inhabitants of the evil blue planet will not find us easy prey. We will never surrender. We will never give up. We will fight them on the dunes. We will fight them on the plains. We will fight them in the cities. We will fight them in the canals. We will fight them to the edge of the empire, but we will never, never, Never, Never, NEVER SURRENDER!"

    During the hyper-patriotic riot that followed, several Citizens were trampled. In its infinite Wisdom, the Great Council has posthumously decorated them as war heroes.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Late Breaking News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure, solid gold, my friend!

    2. Re:Late Breaking News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its twenty years, not ten.

    3. Re:Late Breaking News: by lord_paladine · · Score: 1

      Ha! Twenty of your years, Earthling! Mars has an orbital period of 779.96 days.

    4. Re:Late Breaking News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its twenty years, not ten.

      Martian years, man, Martian years.

    5. Re:Late Breaking News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mr. TripMaster never drops a detail. Behold.

      http://space.about.com/cs/solarsystem/p/marsinfo.h tm

      Orbiting 227,940,000 km (1.52 AU) from Sun, the Martian year is nearly two Earth years,
      while its day is only about half an hour longer than Earth's.


      The article is from Mars, so its in Martian years.
    6. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 2, Funny

      Official Statement of the Unified Resistance Front of Mars (QKTLM):

      Ah, K'Breel, I see that the cowardly gne'el spawn still lives. How is that prosthetic forelimb serving you? Doesn't have quite the senation that your real one did, didn't it? Let me assure you, we still have dozens more martyrs-to-be waiting in your security services, many of whom are better shots. I swear on this beloved red soil, the QKTLM shall wrest control from you and your sycophantic toadies!

      K'tah nrglah tn hk'tah ginr'l Marstv'k qa!!
      Laaq n'tl Marstv'k qa!!

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    7. Re:Late Breaking News: by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the biggest space story of the week, and you've only got in two jokes and no serious posts. You're usually all over this stuff! You're not losing your touch, are you? ;-)

    8. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read about this story when it first came out - it's old to me now, their business plan is obviously not going to work, so I'm just not too into it ;)

      Seriously - a startup claiming that they're going to Mars, one of the most complex and expensive endeavors proposed for our generation by humankind. They might as well have said "We're going to the center of the Earth". It'd be a bit more believable if they weren't just a startup. If they can get some accomplishments under their belt, then I'll take them at least a little seriously. :)

      I mean, heck - mining ore for return to Earth is itself hugely problematic. It's questionable whether even platinum would be valuable enough to justify the return trip - and whatever you mine would have to be mostly processed on Mars so you're not shipping back waste mass. A triangle trade with asteroid belt mines might make sense (in the very long term), but direct martian mining-and-return essentially requires very major launch cost reductions (in addition to a staggering amount of in-situ Mars-Tech).

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    9. Re:Late Breaking News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think I saw this once, Terminus, anyone?

    10. Re:Late Breaking News: by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It'd be a bit more believable if they weren't just a startup.

      Indeed. I'm just surprised that you haven't voiced your (usually quite loud) opinion on the issue. :-)

      I mean, heck - mining ore for return to Earth is itself hugely problematic.

      I personally think that mining asteroids would be more profitable, with a Mars colony serving just a support role. However, I don't think the costs of transportation are quite as high as we've been lead to believe. Scientists just aren't thinking creatively enough! :-)

      Consider for a moment, what's the escape velocity of Mars? 4.1km/s? That's damn near the velocity of Project HARP, and definitely within the velocity capabilities of existing mass drivers! So launching raw materials from Mars *could* be done cheaply.

      The next problem is that of reaching Earth from Low Mars Orbit. How in the world are we going to get all those materials from Mars to Earth on the cheap? Using a Hohmann transfer, it would take 6.1km/s just to get to Low Earth Orbit! Of course, why would anyone want to waste 6.1km/s, when you could use ION engines to accelerate the cargo to less than 0.9km/s, then pick up the Interplanetary Superhighway?

      Once the highway dumps you back into Earth orbit, you merely need to deccelerate into the Earth's atmosphere. (I don't have a quick answer for this Delta-V, sorry.) An inexpensive, ablative epoxy/resin shield could be used for this stage, or some loss to the cargo could be accepted.

      The cargo engines would then pickup Mars-bound cargo and hop back on the highway for a return trip!

      I need to crunch some numbers on this, but it would be VERY cheap in comparison to most existing return models. And once the materials became valuable *in orbit* as opposed to being returned to the Earth, then the entire economic model could become highly profitable. :-)

    11. Re:Late Breaking News: by Dachannien · · Score: 0

      "Noble Citizens, I tell you that the disgusting inhabitants of the evil blue planet will not find us easy prey. We will never surrender. We will never give up. We will fight them on the dunes. We will fight them on the plains. We will fight them in the cities. We will fight them in the canals. We will fight them to the edge of the empire, but we will never, never, Never, Never, NEVER SURRENDER!"

      Yeah, they say that now. But it won't be long before they, for one, welcome their new hyoo-mon overlords.

    12. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 1

      I like the HARP-style launch concept. The big problems, of course, are:

        * How do you cast the barrel in-situ (certainly you wouldn't ship it!)

        * How do you make the 1/3 tonne of custom cordite mix (or equivalent) for each 82 kilograms of return mass? A lot of work went into getting a proper propellant, and even simple cordite takes (apart from what you'd typically expect in a refining process):

        * guncotton
        * * cellulose
        * * sulfuric acid
        * * * sulfur
        * * * O2
        * * * KN03 (i.e., nitrogen fixing bacteria-produced)
        * * * H2O
        * * * sizable (lead) lined chamber
        * * * concentration equipment
        * * nitric acid
        * * * sulfuric
        * * * KNO3
        * * * concentration equipment
        * nitroglycerin
        * * glycerol
        * * * fatty acids and oils
        * * * ethanol (also easiest produced organically)
        * * * "an acid "
        * * nitric
        * * sulfuric
        * petroleum jelly
        * * petroleum (methane linking?)
        * * * CH4
        * * * * CO2
        * * * * Water
        * * * High temperature and pressure to drive H2 off? Suitable equipment for that?
        * * bone char (imported from earth - used for filtering)
        * * A vacuum chamber

      I don't know what else would be needed for HARP's "special" cordite.

        * How do you get a delicate thing like an ion engine to survive launch? Solid rocket motors were stable on their own, and HARP had electronics survive embedded in a solid... perhaps embed the engine in a sublimating ice?

      You also have to make or ship in the martlet-equivalents, but that shouldn't be as difficult.

      There's a whole host of options, of course :) I think a light gas gun or ram accelerator would probably come out the best, but you'd have to run the numbers first. A lot more required infrastructure, for sure, than rocket return, but potentially a lot cheaper. After all, Mars's atmosphere is paper-thin. ;)

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    13. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 1

      Oh, and that list was of course greatly simplified. Just for example, if you're making organic KNO3, the purification process is pretty also takes alum and calcium hydroxide, two vats, one drying tray, a skimmer, and of course water/steam/heat handling systems and bins for your input and output plus your tailings (which would go back to your farm). And I'm not so sure it would work with hydroponic farming, if that's what your colony used - I don't know enough about the subject to say.

      Ethanol production, well you probably already know what's involved in that. Converting CO2 and water all the way to petroleum jelly, I'm pretty sure you can picture the degree of refining involved in that (you even have to start out by purifying the CO2 and water!). Glycerol (i.e. biodiesel) production for the cordite's nitroglycerin, again, a significant refining process for the purity that you need here.

      So, quite the challenge! That's one of the things that a lot of people (not you, mind you - you're usually quite up on things) don't consider when they picture these elaborate infrastructures on other planets: just *how much* work is involved in producing so much of the things that our society depends on in bulk. They can't even make steel normally on Mars - an ancient invention - because they have neither coal/coke nor oxygen natively on the planet.

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    14. Re:Late Breaking News: by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      As you say, a Project HARP style launch would be difficult from a materials perspective, but not impossible.

      How do you cast the barrel in-situ (certainly you wouldn't ship it!)

      You would need a manufacturing presence on Mars first. Everything required for a machine shop could be shipped, leaving smelting as the primary issue. There's certainly enough iron ore on Mars, so it would need to be decided whether to ship a blast furnace and materials, or whether to build primitive forms out of Martian materials and allow the colonists to work their way up to a better design.

      How do you make the 1/3 tonne of custom cordite mix (or equivalent) for each 82 kilograms of return mass?

      Cordite and other nitrates are probably the biggest issue. Our current knowledge of martian soil suggests that Nitrogen is in mighty short supply. Unless we can find Nitrogen pockets on Mars, we'll have issues trying to manufacture any nitrogren based chemicals.

      sulfuric acid
      sulfur


      Now *that* is easy

      O2
      H2O


      H2O would need to be mined and cracked anyway, so both of these products should be readily available. I don't know enough about Project HARP, but I assume that sealed cartriges are used just like any other modern munition.

      ethanol

      Grow corn. :-)

      Seriously, the colonists need to eat something. Corn is one of the easiest crops to grow, responds well to high CO2 levels (although it affects the taste), and should be easy enough for the colonists to take with. The biggest problem is still Nitrogen.

      Which brings me to the point of saying, Mass Drivers just make more sense. You have to bring nuclear power production with you anyway, and the catapults could either be manufactured on Mars (out of martian iron or aluminum) or shipped to Mars using the ION cargo delivery ship. (The reentry would have to be worked out though, since parachutes and water landings are not an option on Mars.)

      How do you get a delicate thing like an ion engine to survive launch?

      They won't. My point was that a cargo vessel would make the run between Earth and Mars via the Superhighway. i.e. The engines will always be in orbit. They'd simply drop down into LMO, scoop up the packages, thrust back to the L1 point of Phobos, then ride the Superhighway all the way back to Earth. The best place to refuel such a craft (which would be hopefully rare given the efficiencies of ION thrusters) would be in Earth orbit.

      Things may be made more efficient through the use of orbital spacestations on *both* sides, so that someone can manipulate the cargo manually if necessary. (Actually, a Mars space station prior to a surface colony may make a lot of sense anyway.)

      A lot more required infrastructure, for sure, than rocket return, but potentially a lot cheaper. After all, Mars's atmosphere is paper-thin.

      Indeed. I believe that the atmospheric pressure at the lowest points is around 10 mbars, whereas Olympus Mons has a pressure of around 1 mbar. Anything fired from a cannon or mass driver is going to encounter VERY little resistence. :-)

    15. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 2

      Grow corn

      I have little doubt that corn would be one of the first crops :) Its uses go far beyond just consumption, and even beyond ethanol - for example, corn syrup provides a sweetener, while corn starch provides a flour. Also, if you've ever grown corn before, it's a very easy plant to deal with.

      The main issue is, with all of the steps, not getting the raw materials but refining them. In the case of ethanol, you need mashers, cooking vats, fermenting vats, heating, a system for dealing with waste gasses (mostly steam and CO2, but not just those gasses) and waste heat (you'll want to recapture as much as possible), mash filtration and squeezing, and purification (vaporization and condensing - i.e., a cooling tower, which on Mars means big heat radiators). Plus, all the obvious associated stuff - storage bins, ethanol containers, water/wastewater holding tanks, pumps, cranes (depends on the amount), etc.

      Sure, it can be done. I daresay, it will be done, and hopefully in our lifetimes. But each new chemical that you want to make generally takes a lot of equipment.

      Unless we can find nitrogen

      Well... Mars's atmosphere is 2.7% nitrogen (although less than 1% of 1 atm). Worst case, you could freeze out the CO2, although it'd be a lot more energy efficient if you could find either mineral deposits or a way to selectively absorb it chemically. I wonder how the Haber Process would work with so much CO2. I'd imagine not very well. I think the nitrogen recovery setup would be:

      1) Freeze out CO2
      2) Use H2 from hydrolysis with heat and several hundred atm CO2-less Mars air and a porous iron catalyst to produce nitrogen.
      3) Condense the ammonia out with steam (inject water, it's already hot)
      4) Use the ammonia to directly create nitric acid (you'll have to concentrate it with sulfuric)

      Doing a little more reading, I ran into the fact that highly concentrated sulfuric can be made directly with iron sulfates, O2, and steam. This is great news, as there already are ample iron sulfates on Mars! :) It's not used on Earth, because it's more expensive than the contact process (pure sulfur + pure O2 with a vanadium oxide catalyst, then steam, but takes very pure reactants to avoid catalyst poisoning, so I didn't list it). In short, you can completely eliminate the need for KNO3.

      Still, I think there would be much better ways to accelerate things than to use precious local chemical supplies (a lot of that will probably go to fertilizers). I'd think it would be more efficient to go with a ram accelerator or a H2/O2 propelled light gas gun - make it so your only reactants come from water :). You'd still have huge initial casting operations, but I'd think your operating costs on Mars would be cheaper.

      The engines will always be in orbit

      Ah. Much simpler. ;) Silly me.

      I'm sure by the time anyone touches down on Mars, descendants of DART will have made automated docking essentially standard, so it shouldn't be an issue. I assume refuelling of the towing craft in LEO? I'd hope that maintenance on it could remain low...

      Of course, all of this is entirely dependant on things at least *remotely* valuable being found on Mars in sizable, reasonably pure deposits. The most valuable thing that the mini-TES on the MERs has discovered so far in concentration (if not distribution) is chromium - a pound of refined chromium will cost perhaps 200$. But, obviously, there's a heck of a lot of exploring still to do ;)

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    16. Re:Late Breaking News: by crazyphilman · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The CrazyPhilman Asteroid Mining Method:

      Step 1: Select an asteroid. For example, that giant slab of solid iron over there, the one that's like a mile wide.

      Step 2: Put rocket engines on one side, and a little house on the other. Move into the little house with a porno babe.

      Step 3: Use the house's pilot station to fire the engines up and set a course for earth.

      Step 4: Fuck the porno chick for several months, eating pop tarts and drinking Jolt cola.

      Step 5: While in Earth Orbit, aim the asteroid at the parcel of land you bought out in the middle of New Jersey. You might think New Jerseyans would get miffed about this, but they're used to environmental destruction. Nobody will mind.

      Step 6: While the asteroid enters the atmosphere, jump in your escape vehicle (it's in the little house's garage) and get out of there! Try and come down someplace nice, like Hawaii. Bone the porno chick some more. Ahhhh... Porno chicks RULE.

      Step 7: Rent a full-size pickup truck and drive out to your New Jersey property with the porno chick and some tools, and gather up your meteorite for sale and distribution! It shouldn't be TOO hard to break it up and sell it... Wait, it's several megatons, you might need a box van.

      Step 8: Repeat annually! Profit!

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    17. Re:Late Breaking News: by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Also, if you've ever grown corn before, it's a very easy plant to deal with.

      I grew up in Wisconsin. Corn is darn near a weed. ;-)

      The main issue is, with all of the steps, not getting the raw materials but refining them. In the case of ethanol, you need mashers, cooking vats, fermenting vats, heating, a system for dealing with waste gasses (mostly steam and CO2, but not just those gasses) and waste heat (you'll want to recapture as much as possible), mash filtration and squeezing, and purification (vaporization and condensing - i.e., a cooling tower, which on Mars means big heat radiators). Plus, all the obvious associated stuff - storage bins, ethanol containers, water/wastewater holding tanks, pumps, cranes (depends on the amount), etc.

      My hope would be to develop these processing facilities on Mars. There's certainly plenty of raw materials and open space to work with. So dig some holes, throw in a few LHOx pumped fires, and build a moonshine distillery. Primitive (and highly illegal in the States!), but effective for early crops. As Mars' industrial capacity grows, more complex devices can be built.

      Speaking of which, I'm starting to wonder if the heavy stuff is not so much of a problem as the really light techno stuff is. For example, a filiment for a light bulb or heating device is not easy to manufacture. Whereas a locomotive can be built out of fairly crude smelting technologies. Rechargable oxygen tanks would be another problem. Pretty much any powerplant technology would rely on oxygen injection for combustion. Unless, that is, we shipped over hydrogen fuel cells. Which would likely be even less useful pound for pound.

      I'd think it would be more efficient to go with a ram accelerator or a H2/O2 propelled light gas gun - make it so your only reactants come from water :). You'd still have huge initial casting operations, but I'd think your operating costs on Mars would be cheaper.

      What's the advantage over electric propulsion like a Mass Driver? With a mass driver you could run a track straight up the side of Olympus Mons and be happy. (Wouldn't it be wonderful to have such a gentle slope here on Earth that ran right above 98% of the atmosphere? Forget the space elevator, we'd put a real elevator in the side of the mountain, and launch from there!) ;-)

      I'm sure by the time anyone touches down on Mars, descendants of DART will have made automated docking essentially standard, so it shouldn't be an issue.

      Or alternatively, it could be guided in by remote control. Either option shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

      I assume refuelling of the towing craft in LEO?

      Correct. As I said above, Earth orbit would make an ideal place for refueling. Just change out the noble gas canisters, and you're off for several more runs.

      I'd hope that maintenance on it could remain low..

      AFAIK, the performance of the ION engines has been exemplary, with the exception of minor contanmination snafus shortly after the engines are first started. Such snafus are usually cleared, and the ION engines perform beautifully afrer that. Worst case is that maintenence would include the swapping of a few other minor components. Still a steal (operationally) any way you cut it. :-)

      Of course, all of this is entirely dependant on things at least *remotely* valuable being found on Mars in sizable, reasonably pure deposits.

      Mmm. I still think that the asteroids are the best bet for mining (no need to perform any more "launch" than a few puffs of propellant), but that doesn't meet the goals of 4Frontiers to colonize Mars. ;-)

    18. Re:Late Breaking News: by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No one would have believed in the first years of the twenty first
      century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by
      intelligences lesser than Martians' and yet as mortal as their own...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Late Breaking News: by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Its uses go far beyond just consumption, and
      > even beyond ethanol - for example, corn syrup
      > provides a sweetener, while corn starch
      > provides a flour. Also, if you've ever grown
      > corn before, it's a very easy plant to deal with.

      Sadly, looking at Human History, I do believe the first use for corn on Mars will be corncobs up the ass. :(

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    20. Re:Late Breaking News: by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      If someone films it, then at least we have the first indication that it'll be a promising venture, because as we know, if it's adopted by porn...

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    21. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 1

      and build a moonshine distillery

      The problem with "moonshine" style distilleries (single vat, open flame beneath it, no machinery to assist with preparation or loading of the mash) is that they're labor intensive for low volume (although it depends how "automated" the distillery we're talking about is :) ). Even still, you need much of what I mentioned before - at least one large vat (preferably two), your heat source, pipes for channelling the heat where you need it (and away from where you don't!) and big heat radiators (remember - you're in an enclosed environment surrounded by a tiny atmosphere on highly insulating soil! It helps with the cooking step, mind you) for when you need to reduce the mash temperature. And even if you're shucking and mashing the corn by hand, you still need some sort of "hardware" to help you, unless you're going to use your teeth. ;)

      built out of fairly crude smelting technologies

      Remember, you can't just smelt iron on Mars. Iron is cheap because we can smelt it with free oxygen and cheap coal/coke (plus CaCO2). I'm not sure of the precise method you'd have to use on Mars, but it seems it'd be more similar to aluminum production (although more complicated, as you don't get the free carbon influx and have to work more to get the silica and sulfur out to slag). Perhaps, with its reductive atmosphere, there might be some pure metallic iron locked up in subsurface rock (like we see on surface lunar rock and regolith)? Otherwise, we know there's titanium and aluminum on Mars - those might be better building materials. Whatever metal you want, the production plant is going to be big, heavy, and unfortunately complicated (you'd probably need an entire heavy-lift spacecraft launch just to deliver the cryolite (Na3AlF6) for aluminum refining if you want a production facility large enough to build your entire colony's bulk structures with). It's pretty much a "must", though, if we want to settle Mars.

      What's the advantage over electric propulsion like a Mass Driver?

      Size. Mass. All of that casting stuff is a lot worse on mass drivers because of their lower acceleration. Also, not just the coils are massive, but your energy storage must be as well - huge capacitor banks instead of simply your barrel containing your propellants like big storage tanks. Even worse, you need precision intense-power electronic switches for each coil, with great heat dissipation. I've seen numbers for a 10km/s, 1000kg payload mass driver (more than we need here, but you can scale down), and it was, to realistically launch a 1000kg projectile, would take a 100km track and 5 GW of power in your capacitor banks. And to dissipate the heat from that in your switches on a planet like Mars? Not easy, to say the least.

      As for, say, a light gas gun, a 10 meter long gun already in existence gets projectiles up to 6 km/s. Now, the projectiles are only a tenth of a gram, but I'd expect it to scale linearly or less, so 1,000kg would be 10km or less. And no big capacitor banks, precision switches, or anything of the sort. Plus, your projectile only needs a simple sabot, instead of a coil.

      performance of the ION engines has been exemplary

      At least within design bounds. :) Traditional ion and hall effect thrusters inherently have particles hit the grids (after all, the particles are *attracted to* the grids - they only make thrust when they miss, which is most of the time :) ), and so the grids inherently degrade. You'd need to replace them, or use more advanced thrusters. Also, the cathodes degrade (although some new designs create ions via microwaves).

      I still think that asteroids are the best bet for mining

      Me too :) That was mainly a commentary on this company's business plan of mining Mars itself. While I have a lot of disagreements with Zubrin, I really like his triangle trade notion.

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
    22. Re:Late Breaking News: by Rei · · Score: 1

      Corr: That's "GWh of energy" instead of "GW of power". My bad. :) I never checked their calculations, though. Lets do our own, for 1000 kg from, Mars (lets say, what, 4 km/s?):

      Assume: 20% system efficiency (capacitor discharge losses, switch losses, magnetic field losses)

      Energy requirements: 1/efficiency * 1/2 mv^2 = 10 * .5 * 1000 * 4000^2 = 80GJ = 80GWs = 11 MWh.

      Assume: Domesticaly produced "simple" capacitors, with an energy density near the bottom range of commercial capacitor performance (say, 0.05 Wh/kg)

      Capacitor requirements: 11,000,000 Wh / (0.05 Wh/kg) = 220 million kg

      Even if we were to luck out and find out that, say, martian soil made a good conventional capacitor (say, 1 Wh/kg - I seriously doubt they could do bulk supercapacitor manufacture there), you're still looking at tens of millions of kilograms of capacitors.

      And this doesn't even cover the switches. :P You'd want nanometer-scale silicon wafers so as to help draw off the heat from such a huge discharge into the heat sink as quickly as possible.

      --
      Son, a woman is a lot like a refrigerator. They're six feet tall, 300 pounds... they make ice... umm...
  7. If it's too good to be true... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the old saying goes, "if it's too good to be true, it probably is."

    Still, it's nice to see someone attempting to hold to their dreams. And I'd dearly love to believe that they will carry out such dreams. Unfortunately, I (and many others here) understand what a massive undertaking it is to reach Mars at all, much less place a settlement there. Nearly every company in existance bases itself on existing infrastructures. This company would be able to leverage very little infrastructure, if any at all! (Especially if they chose to use the wealth of undeveloped space technology.)

    I'd love to see their breakdown of exactly how they plan to make this mission happen, and on what buget they think they're going to acheive it on. Will they use existing rocketry technology, or will they develop their own? What are the precise economic goals? Will they be relying on any other efforts (e.g. the CEV) to achieve their goals? Just how do they think they're going to get approval for nuclear propulsion? (See the Jobs page under Engineering.) Do they have any experience in these areas, or are they making it up as they go?

    No. There are far too many variables to count for me to take this on face value. There simply isn't enough info. Perhaps others could shed some light on their long-term plans?

    Update: It looks like the partly plan to make their money by building the technological infrastructure themselves. According to this document, they feel that they could be turning a $29.7 million dollar profit by 2010, 15 years before they establish their settlement! This document supposedly shows their plan of attack, but it seems so preliminary that it suggests that the company plans to make it up as they go along.

    1. Re:If it's too good to be true... by over_exposed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From their site: Development of intellectual property applied to the four frontiers, R&D programs, educational and demonstration programs for students and the public at large will frame the uniqueness of 4Frontiers.

      How exactly is "intellectual property" going to be enforced once you leave the confines of our planet? Assuming they (or someone) can create a viable, long term colony on mars, the moon, a space station, wherever, no laws will apply to them. They could manufacture anything they want. Want a SpaceBose stereo? How about a copy of MicroSpace Windows? Who wants a MoonPorche?

      I really hope the US doesn't assume the role of pushing our laws and practices into the 'final frontier.' But the question is, who gets to start the process? Do we leave it up to private companies? Whoever has the strongest military?

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    2. Re:If it's too good to be true... by garcia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd love to see their breakdown of exactly how they plan to make this mission happen, and on what buget they think they're going to acheive it on. Will they use existing rocketry technology, or will they develop their own? What are the precise economic goals? Will they be relying on any other efforts (e.g. the CEV) to achieve their goals? Just how do they think they're going to get approval for nuclear propulsion? (See the Jobs page under Engineering.) Do they have any experience in these areas, or are they making it up as they go?

      They are betting on the fact that people don't require any of that to give money away. They are "hiring" people for a company that is full of freedom and is pro-exploration but gives no solid foundation of how they will remain employed.

      Making plastics is great and all but how do you expect to get people there and start the colony so that people can actually make these items w/the materials that are so readily available?

      Update: It looks like the partly plan to make their money by building the technological infrastructure themselves. According to this document, they feel that they could be turning a $29.7 million dollar profit by 2010, 15 years before they establish their settlement! This document supposedly shows their plan of attack, but it seems so preliminary that it suggests that the company plans to make it up as they go along.

      Just as I pointed out before, without actually saying it, this is very similiar to any dotcom startup in the 1990s. No true business model, no real plan, and no real company. Just a bunch of money and the web.

      This is nothing more than an advertisement to gain capital.

    3. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, it's nice to see someone attempting to hold to their dreams
      In all likelihood they're really trying to swindle someone else out of their dreams.

    4. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Trigun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd like to see your military make it to Mars. He'll I'd like to see your space program make it to Mars.

      Ain't gonna happen.

    5. Re:If it's too good to be true... by SirChris · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They should develop a civilan based military like group of people, since we all know once they get out there there is going to be a big question of who is in charge. No courts? police? virgins? What mayhem could people that far away create with noone but themselves to put them in check

    6. Re:If it's too good to be true... by carn1fex · · Score: 1

      Hm the documents could have used some outside consulting during editing. The crayola drawing of the CEO lighting the "Roket" with a match while firing his blaster at teethy aliens might hinder them convincing venture capitalists they know how to leverage dynamic market synergies.

      --

      ---------

      No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

    7. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the end it would be left to the settlers.

    8. Re:If it's too good to be true... by shawb · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why? Because they don't have plans for actually leaving. My guess is the "going to mars" thing is a way to attract attention from starry eyed (pun not originally intended) investors and scientists to work for them. Then they'll just develop technology in many fields (mining, aerospace, medical, communications, robotics???) and just lease out the rights to use the tech. I bet Bruce Mackenzie doesn't really expect to make it there any time soon, but wouldn't mind helping others eventually get there (and profitting off of it in the meantime.)

      Not a horrible business strategy in my mind.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    9. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just saw a poll recently that at least 35% of people believe in "creationism" over "big bang" (if you have to believe in a god, I don't know why you can't believe that he created everything starting from a big bang - but whatever).

      I find it hard to believe that a country that has such a significant percentage of people who believe in a fairy-tale rather than giving any weight to the big bang - or at least reserving any judgement at all until scientific efforts have solidly made a determination beyond all doubt - will make any great space-related discovery or exploratory achievement at any time in the near future.

      Ignorance and mythology has held progress in check and limited it greatly and it always will - unless maybe Pat Robertson runs for president again and starts a "faith-based space program" or something.

    10. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you did not read their business plan carefully.
      they plan on turning a profit right away by building a weapons development facility next to the mining facility.

    11. Re:If it's too good to be true... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, but I think there's a business model to be found there. The first thing that comes to mind is the same defense that many use regarding space exploration: innovation. While the goal and long-term plan might involve getting to Mars and setting up shop there, along the way they'll need a lot of technological advancements. Licensing that technology, the patents, etc. would make the journey just as profitable as the destination.

      Sure, this is a fund-raising PR move. But if they come anywhere close to their goal by that time, I'd guess they'll be an awfully powerful and rich company by then simply from their patent portfolio.

    12. Re:If it's too good to be true... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      How exactly is "intellectual property" going to be enforced once you leave the confines of our planet?

      The exact same way it is enforced on our planet. Money/power and the implicit threat of violence.

    13. Re:If it's too good to be true... by AdamInParadise · · Score: 1

      What make you think that we do not already have all the tech required to establish a settling on Mars AND that it is not already patented to Hell?

      Hey, that's almost the pickup lines of most exploration's plans for the Red Planet: "We have the technologies, we just need some money!"

      --
      Nobox: Only simple products.
    14. Re:If it's too good to be true... by digidave · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's a long shot, but it sounds like they're taking the right path.

      They want to develop the technology to stay there (eg. Biosphere, mining, oxygen extraction and plastics manufacturing) first and take it with them. This means they only need to get to Mars once rather than have a first settlement that gets regular drops of supplies. Sounds much easier to me. In fact, just getting there is doable today as long as you don't want to get back, aren't too concerned about the time it takes to get there and don't need to rely on Earth for anything.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    15. Re:If it's too good to be true... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest investing it automated drilling machines that can bore tunnels in rock and fuse the tunnel walls to be air tight. At least then you could automate building of most of the colony with a minimal of hassle. Maybe harvest the drilled out rock to make into glass that could be used to construct above ground areas for growing food. Get THAT much working and I'll be interested to see how they work out enviromental and life support issues.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    16. Re:If it's too good to be true... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > at least reserving any judgement at all until scientific efforts have solidly made a determination beyond all doubt

      Unfortunately, due to the nature of.. uh, everything, it's not really possible (AFAICT) to know for sure what happened "In the Beginning..."

      Otherwise, I agree.

    17. Re:If it's too good to be true... by over_exposed · · Score: 1

      Eh, who cares? Build the stuff in secret. Violate thousands of patents, trademarks and copyrights. Once you take off, who's going to do anything about it? I mean sure, they can send lawyers after you, but once they leave the atmosphere, kill 'em. Who's going to stop you? The police? China? The UN? The RIAA?

      --
      "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
    18. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      How exactly is "intellectual property" going to be enforced once you leave the confines of our planet?

      It seems to me that whom ever makes it to Mars, controls Mars. Considering they are talking about developing the infrastructure themselves, it really isn't that hard to see them renting their infrastructure out once the USA manages to make it to Mars. It really shouldn't be that hard to enforce. I wonder how difficult it is to chuck a rock at a space ship that takes six months to get to your location. Of course, your customers might not like having rocks chucked at them. I guess it's as good a basis as any for the start of the solar civilization.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    19. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      He'll I'd like to see your space program make it to Mars.


      Hey, man, our space program is on Mars right now. Just because the current vehicles only carry cameras, don't think we can't send over the heavies


      Damn uppity Martian settlers, next thing you know they'll be declaring independence and throwing Coca Cola into the harbour... ;^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    20. Re:If it's too good to be true... by MoralHazard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The simplest way to enforce intellectual property is the ban the import of goods that flaunt the law. No need for interstellar police forces, or invasions, or anything dramatic--just good old-fashioned trade embargos.

      And remember, you can be sued in US courts for actions anywhere, even on Mars. So if these Martian people have any assets or business presense in the US, it's pretty simple to prove the relationship and use the local assets as a proxy to inflict punishments on the offenders.

    21. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's possible for the human mind to grasp the concepts necessary for anything before the moment of that initial instant spark in the universe (whatever it may have been). There will be a limitation before which we will never have true knowledge of.

      But that doesn't mean we should just go around inventing campfire stories to explain it, either. If we let religion hinder us even more than we already do, we would never even be at the point where we were exploring space at all, because we'd still believe that they were gods rather than planets.

    22. Re:If it's too good to be true... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      There ain't no money on Mars yet. And won't be in the near future. If you have a patent dispute on Mars, sue the people on Earth.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    23. Re:If it's too good to be true... by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the opening of Baseketball.

      So help me, if I finally get my dream to explore space, I'm going to be very upset if its in a ship with "Tampax" painted on the side )~\

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    24. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Gewis · · Score: 1

      Why, the US doesn't have to push any of its laws, but it can and will look after its own interests. There's these things called treaties, like, "We'll allow our folks to ship stuff to you if you'll recognize American intellectual property rights." Beautiful, isn't it?

    25. Re:If it's too good to be true... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And instead of one, huge, honkin', all the eggs in one basket mission, they should send advanced, unmanned missions to set up small buildings, and lots of cargo, especially food and oxygen.

      And only once that's all in place, only then do you send the mission with the people in it. (Of course, you'll have to send a ton of food and oxygen with them just in case, but at least you'll most likely have lots extra, plus all the stuff is there and working before they get there.)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:If it's too good to be true... by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Funny

      "How exactly is "intellectual property" going to be enforced once you leave the confines of our planet?"

      Don't you think that 10 years (2015) is quite long enough for the RIAA, the MPAA, Sony, and Microsoft to attain space travel -- combine MSFT's bankroll, **AA's militant in-your-face attitude, and Sony's robotics, and I would say that that represents one heck of a potent capability (almost Borg-like.)

      Of course, by 2015 the USA government itself will be an ineffectual basket-case, having wasted all its resources on the continuing war in the Middle East (Kansas, Nebraska, etcetera) against rising sea levels, as global warming proves to be all too true. The USA's (in)ability to handle natural disasters and civil engineering projects will be legend by then.

    27. Re:If it's too good to be true... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny
      So help me, if I finally get my dream to explore space, I'm going to be very upset if its in a ship with "Tampax" painted on the side )~\

      Oh come on, it's not that bad. At least you'd be relieving Mother Universe's menstrual flow. Thousands of women would adore your bold symbolic mission in the name of sanitary products, and throw panties at you. Which would be fresh and lack blood stains due to the miracle of Tampax.

      We're all in this tampon-spaceship together. Don't forget that. This is not a time for pulling strings, it's a time for serious application of one's self.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  8. Ooooh - Aliens! by tygerstripes · · Score: 2, Funny
    mine Mars for building materials and energy sources

    Proof of an extinct alien life form then - fossilized bricks and dynamos.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
  9. pesky humans.. by abes · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great, there goes the neighborhood!

  10. NASA by xlr8ed · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone should inform NASA so that they can remove any of their probes on the Martian surface. They cost a lot of money and I'm sure NASA would want to know if they are in danger.

  11. Right by Mukaikubo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know the typical Slashdot geeks will wet their pants over this, but this simply isn't reasonable, guys.

    Mine WHAT? The economics and physics of the situation are such that Martian material is valuable for using on Mars or in Mars orbit. That's IT. And even then, what does Mars have? The only really importnant thing is organic chemicals and suchlike, because otherwise it is boring mineral slag.

    1. Re:Right by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point. Another good point to consider is that when they do go and look around and start mining all this material, who's going to say it's safe for import to Earth? We have no idea if there is life on Mars, but I'd bet my slim fortune that if there is life on Mars, it's microbial and probably not too friendly with our own biological systems. For all we know, it may even be downright dangerous, highly infectious, and could wipe out all life on Earth.

      Who's going to be in charge of ensuring the safety of our planet when these yahoos go out and start dragging rocks home? Sure, Moon rocks were brought back to Earth without any grave consequences since the Moon is a sterile cinder floating in vacuum, but we just don't know enough about Martian biology to start considering bringing back *anything*.

      Knowing what I know about how private industries operate, I wouldn't trust them to ensure our planetary ecosystem's safety.

    2. Re:Right by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Funny

      They have all that beautiful orange dirt. Our current technology cannot produce orange dirt. There is a huge market here for orange dirt, we just need someone to go to Mars and mine it.

    3. Re:Right by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      The bigger concern honestly is contaminating Mars and ruining a search for life there. That could be an unprecedented scientific screwup and definitely one I could see a private company doing.

    4. Re:Right by Seumas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nevertheless, you have to admire the intent.

      Rather than dealing with democracy and politics and the opinions of "the people" and dealing with environmental regulations and countless other limitations and concerns by other parties, these guys would jump ahead of everyone else by beating people and governments to the punch, essentially owning and controlling whatever they can touch out there. Who's going to stop them?

      It's good to know that, in the future, corporations will not be hampered by government regulations or the will of the people. Space needs to be "first come, first served". If Wal-Mart and Exxon read everything in the solar system first, then damn it, they should get to do with it what they wish.

      Also, I think it is a brilliant idea to continue burning fuels and manufacturing things that have toxic byproducts on this planet, with resources imported from the rest of the galaxy. That way we don't have to limit ourselves to just poisoning ourselves with the limited local resources, but can import them from off-world and poison ourselves to now end. PERFECT!

      This will also be good for the average American. By the time they accomplish this, most American's will be jobless. Remember, Americans are lazy, un-creative and unable to compete with the rest of the world. Once all of our jobs (short of janitorial work) have been exported, ventures such as this will provide us with wonderful opportunities to be employed once again, providing physical labor mining and processing goods on other planets (at least, until they are able to automate it). Corporate extra-terrestrial slavery/employment will be our one way to remain relevant in the world.

      Hurrah!

    5. Re:Right by Caltheos · · Score: 1

      What do you think they are going to mine, raw materials. There is also theoretically a large amount of sub-surface ice that can be tapped.

      As far as getting these materials around, getting them to orbit is the only challenge, but that could be accomplished by mass driver or rockets fueled with propellant made from ice. The lower gravity of Mars would make this far more cost effective then launching supplies from Earth, although more costly then the Moon. At this point, the ores can be ballistically sent anywhere in the solar system for minimal cost (It may take a few years for shipment but once continuous shipment starts, there will be a constant stream of materials arriving at the destination.)

      The following is an excerpt I found on available materials. This also doesn't account for substantial metorite deposits left on the surface.

      http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/pdf/csew4_BarrieCT01.pd f
      The approach should consider terrestrial, non-arc settings on Earth, including: impact-related magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide deposits (e.g., Sudbury Basin, Ontario, the world's largest Ni resource), komatiite-hosted (e.g., "lunar rille"-related) magmatic sulfide deposits (Kambalda district in Western Australia, Timmins, Ontario komatiite-hosted deposits, anorthositic (e.g., lunar and martian highlands) Fe-Ti oxide (Schreifferville, Quebec) and magmatic sulfide (Voisey's Bay, Labrador) deposits, kimberlitic diamond (Ekati, NWT) deposits (potential at Olympus Mons and nearby volcanos?); sedimentary Fe (Helen Iron Range, Ontario), Mn (Kalahari deposits, South Africa) Cu (Kupreschifer, Poland) and possibly U (Athabasca deposits, Saskatchewan) deposits; and a variety of continental magmatic-hydrothermal deposits (Olympic Dam Cu-U-REE, Australia; possibly Creede caldera epithermal Au-Ag, Colorado). Aggregate minerals need to be considered as well.

      --
      We've secretely replaced the Enterprise's dilithium crystals with Folgers crystals. Lets see if they notice.
    6. Re:Right by NardofDoom · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There's no reason for us to believe that Mars doesn't have the same minerals as the earth does. And they haven't been exploited like Earth's have, so they're in easily accessible locations.

      Since Mars has water, CO2 and a 24ish-hour day, everything exists to create fuel and oxygen and grow food. Mars has lower gravity than earth, so launching is significantly less energy intensive, and transfer of raw materials back to Mars just requires reaching escape velocity and falling back toward the Earth.

      Everything that's needed to survive on Mars is already there, except for humans and the machinery they need to survive and thrive.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    7. Re:Right by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      It's not just any orange dirt. It's Martian orange dirt. It could be bottled and sold for extortionate prices.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:Right by Cally · · Score: 1
      hallelujah, brother, you preach it! Actually I'm delighted to see that the usual addled Zemeckis zealots and other people who seem to think the titles for Star Trek: Enterprise are a future historical documentary. Yeah, they laughed at Einstein* and the Wright brothers but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown, who has as much chance of making it to Mars as these jokers.

      (*actually they didn't laugh at Einstein if they had enough mathematics and physics to understand his work.)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    9. Re:Right by Oquin · · Score: 1

      Mine WHAT?

      Hi, I'm from a new company called the UAC to field questions such as these. We have developed a process that destabilises the atomic structure of pulverised iron oxide and separates it into subatomic particles which are then siphoned off to create new elements.

      Like alchemists of old the Elemental Phase Deconstructor allows us to transform red martian soil into clean air, fresh water and hydrogen fuel, the building blocks for a sustainable human friendly martian environment. And this is only the beginning.

      With continued research we envision creating evermore complex molecules, even organic matter itself. Atom by atom the UAC is building an even brighter future for humankind.

      We are currently looking for talanted demon^H^H^H^H^H humans to occupy positions that have recently opened up. If you are interested please email me at ipromiseiamnothellspawn@iwilleatyoursoul.com.

    10. Re:Right by barawn · · Score: 1

      Mine WHAT? The economics and physics of the situation are such that Martian material is valuable for using on Mars or in Mars orbit. That's IT.

      Actually, it's very easy to get to LEO from Mars orbit. See here. Easier than getting to the Moon, in fact.

      Mars does seem a little silly. Asteroids have much higher mineral wealth, especially some rarer minerals. Though the problem is that the world economy has kindof evolved to not need them - flooding the world with them will just collapse that economy, not bring you unlimited wealth.

    11. Re:Right by misleb · · Score: 1
      There's no reason for us to believe that Mars doesn't have the same minerals as the earth does. And they haven't been exploited like Earth's have, so they're in easily accessible locations.

      "No reason to believe that Mars doesn't have..." isn't really good enough, is it? I imagine it would take quite a bit of surveying and study to determine if mining Mars is even feasable at all. Up until now, we've literally only scatched the surface.

      Everything that's needed to survive on Mars is already there, except for humans and the machinery they need to survive and thrive.

      Gee, is that it? Wow, one wonders why we're not there already.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    12. Re:Right by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Their actual business plan, in classic /. business plan format:

      1) Mine Mars for ore to be made into steel and water to be converted to oxygen.
      2) Fling material into space using mass drivers.
      3) Build Death Star.
      4) Hold Earth for ransom.
      5) ???
      6) Profit!

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Right by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      Concidering the number of safety freaks on this planet there will be something in place by then, so don't worry be happy.

    14. Re:Right by Eric604 · · Score: 1
      Mine WHAT?

      Bose-Einstein condensates ofcourse, for our quantum entangled transportation needs.

      (just trying to keep the silliness at level)

  12. Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these future claims are just investment ballons floated to fleece the easily duped. There are plenty of technological problems associated with mining Mars including lifting the mined material off the surface. Bob Park wrote in his book "Voodoo Science" that it would cost more than $800USD to put ~$300USD of gold into orbit. His conclusion was that if gold were available in low-Earth orbit, it wouldn't pay to go get it. That is the first thing they teach in an economic geology course.

    The materials on Mars are no different than here on Earth, only the abundances are different. So you mine a bunch of aluminosilicates and then what? Do these people realize how much energy it takes to break those bonds? Where is their proposed power source? The amount of solar energy reaching Mars is less than here on Earth. I hope they weren't counting on that source. Nuclear energy might be useful, but I don't know of anyone who has done a uranium assay of Martian ores. Are we going to ship power to Mars? How is that cost effective?

    Unless these people have gone through a complete analysis of what it costs to go to Mars then I can't see how any of them can make any claim of profitability, let alone put a target date on their venture.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by abes · · Score: 1

      Without doubt there are many logistics (and technology) to work out. So while perhaps it is very (if not extremely) forward looking, it might not be without merit either.

      For example, with our progression towards automanufacturing, it might possible for self-constructing robotic colonies (in the far future) to not only collect of resources, but creating the necessary products, tools, etc. as well.

      Why bother on Mars? Well, assuming that we don't care about possible life forms there that may or may not exist, it saves us from further destroying the Earth. Not just mining, but think about manufacturing processes. Besides which, if we're ever going to get off this planet, and take over the galaxy, we need to start somewhere. It will be a great drive to develop needed technology.

      As for energy, there are the obvious sources (like nuclear or solar). Perhaps by then we will have better methods..

    2. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 1

      Not just mining, but think about manufacturing processes.

      Yes, but what will you make and how will you get it to market?

      That is the same problem that faces these folks who want to move far away from civilization here on the EARTH. They pick some lonely stretch of highway, put a trailer on the side of the road, and open up a store. The number of potential customers is 5 per month. They wonder silently why they are going broke.

      This plot is right out of the Martian Chronicles.

      As for energy, there are the obvious sources (like nuclear or solar).

      1) No one knows how much uranium exists on Mars, much less where it is.

      2) The amount of solar radiation hitting Mars is less than Earth.

      Not enough power to make shit for people who aren't around to buy it.

      Sorry, but this is just a pure business scam.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geckofiend · · Score: 1

      Ahhh yes, and computers are so big nobody will ever have on in their home.

    4. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      So you mine a bunch of aluminosilicates and then what? Do these people realize how much energy it takes to break those bonds?

      It really doesn't matter, because they've already developed and implemented a method to make a profit by seperating the bond between a fool and his money. The only resource they're going to tap into are the rich supply of suckers readily available here on Earth.

    5. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 1

      Ahhh yes, and computers are so big nobody will ever have on in their home.

      And we will have flying cars by the year 2000 (claim made circa 1950).

      The number of futuristic claims that have been busted far exceed those claim that were underestimated and came true.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    6. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 4, Funny

      It really doesn't matter, because they've already developed and implemented a method to make a profit by seperating the bond between a fool and his money.

      I hope they didn't try to patent their method. I think Enron has prior art.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    7. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by TGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Duh! After landing on Mars they'll change their name to Union Aerospace Corp. Then they'll begin some high end weapons research - specificly working out how to let a normal guy hold a chain gun without ripping his own arms off.

      Once they've mastered that, they'll litter the place with chain saws for reasons passing understanding and begin dimentional rift research.

      Don't you people know anything?

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    8. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by Taevin · · Score: 1

      If you actually stop and think about it for a minute instead of immediately dismissing the entire concept you might have more luck understanding the opposing viewpoint.

      Yes, but what will you make and how will you get it to market?

      I can't speak for what exactly he was talking about but for one, what about heavy industry? If there is no life on Mars and we don't care about polluting it, would it not make a good place for dirty manufacturing type facilities? As for how to get it to the market, I would think this would be largely solved in the process of setting these kinds of industries up on Mars. At least for the initial colony and manufacturing plants, you'll have to transport a lot of mass a long way from Earth. If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars, surely you can make a return cargo flight full of valuable materials (probably with increased efficiency as well due to improvements in technology combined with data and experience from your initial journey).

      Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now. They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power). If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you. Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.

    9. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would think this would be largely solved in the process of setting these kinds of industries up on Mars.

      That isn't how businesses operate. They have these things solved before they start shoveling out large piles of cash to build factories, dirty or clean, in places that are FAR from their intended market.

      If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars...

      Therein lies the crux of the problem. I don't beleive they know enough about the technical problems they face before pronouncing that they will be on Mars by 2025. They don't know how much it will cost, yet they set an end date?

      That is a bad business practice.

      Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now.

      Which is even more reason to find it suspect.

      They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025.

      That's a good bet. The technology will certainly be different in 20 years. But not enough to make this venture any less bullshit.

      Other than the internet, software, and the speed of computers, how much is technology different than 1985? We still drive cars, right? Our primary space exploration vehicle is (or was) still the shuttle.

      It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power).

      Entirely unreasonable? No, but how likely? Not likely.

      If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you.

      Twenty years is just a few years.

      Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.

      Cars haven't changed much since they were invented. They have gotten more efficient and faster, but they still use four wheels and a steering wheel. They still burn fossil fuels.

      If you are considering the minor but important changes that have happened to cars as being a tremendous shift in personal transportation, then I can see how you would get the idea that the Mars venture could be possible.

      But considering the HUGH technological challenges, much less the basic science questions yet to be answered, as being insignificant in a twenty year timeframe, then by all means, ship them your money.

      Mine is staying in less speculative ventures.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    10. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting said gold out of low earth orbit would not cost as much as putting it into orbit. His conclusion is faulty.

    11. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      If popular culture teaches us anything, it's that a Mars landing always means DEATH.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    12. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by CK2004PA · · Score: 0
      Uh, who says we don't have flying cars? The only thing preventing me from buying mine is the FAA saftey process, which is REALLY slow.

      http://www.moller.com/ Check the FAQ section for the M400 model.

      --
      "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"-Adolf Hitler or George W Bush?
    13. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by jwdb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it would cost more than $800USD to put ~$300USD of gold into orbit. His conclusion was that if gold were available in low-Earth orbit, it wouldn't pay to go get it.

      Maybe I'm misreading something, but isn't it significantly more expensive to put something into orbit than to get it back down, and if so, what's the cost of putting gold into orbit got to do with going there to mine it and bringing it back?

      It may cost $80 billion to get $30 billion of gold into orbit, but if it only costs you half a billion to launch the shuttle into orbit then it is most certainly worth going to get it.

      Jw

    14. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The amount of solar energy reaching Mars is less than here on Earth. I hope they weren't counting on that source."

      Uh -- some good points, but lets not forget there are two rovers out there generating about 140 watts of power for up to four hours per martian day. They have panels roughly the size of a golf cart....

    15. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 1

      Uh, who says we don't have flying cars?

      Me, I don't have one.

      You see, the futurists of the 1950's envisioned an era when nearly everyone would be flying a car.

      The only thing preventing me from buying mine is the FAA saftey process, which is REALLY slow.

      Boy, I'd say. But I doubt regulatory issues are the only thing that keeps us from having flying cars. There are infrastructure considerations as well. Unless we ban all of the cars in the US so we can use the current roads for runways, we are seriously short on landing space.

      And, really - don't you think that half a century is long enough to get the technical wrinkles out of flying cars?

      Remember jet packs? Those were supposed to be the future of personal transportation too. But they do exist and have for decades. But the reason we don't use them is because they are too costly to operate for the miles traveled. I suspect that is the real reason we are not using flying cars too.

      Check the FAQ section for the M400 model.

      They look great. I wish I had one. I'd be streaking though the canyons near my house. What a rush!

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    16. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by lgw · · Score: 1

      Heck, they might even realize that a gun with rotating barrels is called a mini-gun, not a chain gun! There *are* actually .22 "micro" miniguns than a (crazy) man could fire without ripping his own arms off. (GE has made prototypes, and fans of the minigun have made their own.)

      http://www.montysminiguns.com/brian.htm

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...140 watts of power for up to four hours per martian day.

      So less heating capacity than my daughter's blowdryer.

      That is not nearly enough energy to power an industrial park. As I said, the venture will probably have to rely on nuclear power. Not that I wouldn't use nuclear energy if I were to operate on Mars, but where is that economic inflection point at which you can turn a profit? How much would a business have to import to make a manufacturing prospect work out?

      And once you have produced your goods, how much to ship them to market? UPS charges more than the USPS, but if I am shipping large volumes of manufactured goods, I would want to use a large craft. How much to build a fleet of space-trucks? Some of that data exists, but we know that there are tremendous losses that have to be factored in.

      And what about insurance underwriting? How much is insurance going to cost, for one trip to the Red Planet, provided anyone would underwrite the policy?

      If you are willing to pay $1MUSD for the first television set manufactured on Mars just for bragging rights, I'm rooting for you. I will pick the same "Hencho en Mexico" version for $50USD brand at the local discount store.

      They have panels roughly the size of a golf cart....

      To power even a light manufacturing plant, I'd say you are probably looking at a football field's worth of panels. I'm sure an EE can give you more precise numbers, but I think we can agree that it would not be a couple of golf cart's worth.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    18. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by alw53 · · Score: 1


      A space elevator for Mars is certainly possible 20 years from now.

    19. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 0, Troll

      Getting said gold out of low earth orbit would not cost as much as putting it into orbit.

      It is if you plan your recovery on the premise of a round trip.

      Whether you go to Hawaii by jet to bury gold, or LEO to suspend gold in orbit, you still have to make a round trip.

      And if you think that weight will be a factor, it most certainly is. The problem with getting gold into the air is the energy to make reaching escape velocity. The problem with retreiving gold from LEO is the energy it takes to slow down from escape velocity.

      Both are very expensive prospects when viewed as a geologist. I can go to Indonesia and mine gold for $300USD and make a profit. Can you take gold from LEO and make a profit? Not if you use the shuttle. It costs $1.3BUSD each time it leaves the ground. If you can move freight for a lower cost than what it takes to put a satellite into orbit, then you might be able to make money from mining imaginary LEO gold.

      His conclusion is faulty.

      You misunderstood the premise.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    20. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by runderwo · · Score: 1

      They laughed at Edison. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

    21. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 1

      A space elevator for Mars is certainly possible 20 years from now.

      Yes, but would you bet your investment now on the possibility that it will exist *sometime* in the future?

      If so, then I have a bridge I'd like to have you invest in that *may* be built *someday* to join Manhattan to Brooklyn.

      Businesses do not invest in highly speculative ventures without some expectation of an astronomical return on investment. For a Mars enterprise, you wouldn't expect some stupid 18-40% return. No, you are expecting magnitudes more in return because the likelihood that this Mars venture has of succeeding is slim to none.

      Notice I didn't say impossible. A trip to Mars by humans may happen in the next 20 years. It will be a trip funded by countries who have no expectation of future financial gain. It will certainly NOT be made by a group of private investors unless they got together and shelled out billions with the expectation of trillions in return.

      And the products that would be the result of that venture had better either be worth more than they could be made for here in Earth, or a one-of-a-kind item that could *never* be made here for less.

      I don't see any compelling investment angle in this announcement.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    22. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Informative
      It may cost $80 billion to get $30 billion of gold into orbit, but if it only costs you half a billion to launch the shuttle into orbit then it is most certainly worth going to get it.

      If the shuttle was still allowed to take a load back from orbit (or it was even allowed to fly at all), it could carry 40,000 pounds back to earth. There's 14.58 troy ounces in a pound, and gold runs int he $450 an ounce range these days. 40,000 * 14.58 * 450 = ~262 million.

      If gold ingots were available, 99.9 pure, in orbit, free for the taking, it would still not be anywhere near worth going up to fetch them with the shuttle. At a half billion of direct operating cost (before you factor in it needs to be replace after 50 flights), the gold returned still barely equates to half the mission cost.

      Sometimes the phrase 'worth it's weight in gold' means 'just not worth it'.

    23. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual Bob Parks quote is:
      "according to recent NA$A testimony, each shuttle launch costs about $500M. At that price, if you could transmute lead into gold by taking it into orbit, it wouldn't pay."

      The point is that it is not commercially feasible to mine anything in space. Our technology isn't progressing (NASA currently sends astronauts into space aboard a Russian rocket that Yuri Gregoran would feel comfortable with), and the cost is going up.

    24. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by ktorn · · Score: 1
      it could carry 40,000 pounds back to earth
      Why would it have to carry anything back to earth? Let gravity do most of the work.

      The first idea that came to my mind was making the shuttle go around collecting the goods, wrap them in a re-entry shield material and just push them back to earth, in such a way that they fall somewhere in a desert. One launch, all the 'gold' retrieved.

      In fact this is something I think they should be already doing with orbital debris, before it gets out of hand.
    25. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      How do you think it is going to get back?

    26. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1
      That isn't how businesses operate.
      Actually, it is how businesses operate. Or haven't you heard of research and development (R&D) costs? Besides, for the investor that invests in this company, assuming their R&D pans out and this all works, they'll get back far more than they invested in the end.
      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    27. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by geomon · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is how businesses operate. Or haven't you heard of research and development (R&D) costs?

      Yes, I have. I work for a company that does nothing but research and development. And sitting on this side of the fence, I can tell you that NO ONE would put the kind of money down for a commercial mission to Mars to build the same stuff we can manufacture here on Earth. Period.

      Besides, for the investor that invests in this company, assuming their R&D pans out and this all works, they'll get back far more than they invested in the end.

      There is a lot of 'assuming' going on in this venture. If you are talking about pharma-companies shelling out millions to make billions, I agree with you whole-heartedly. If you are talking about a group of idealistic investors (I'm being gracious here) taking a risk to make trillions, I think they have been smoking too much crack.

      Where is the money for this venture coming from again? Are you claiming these people are pulling the money for this mission out of their *own* pockets? I doubt it. They are trying to attract venture capital. Walk down to your neighborhood venture capitalist with a good idea on how to make money here on Earth and he will grill you for more detail than has been offered to date by these yeah-hoos.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    28. Re:Yeah, and I will cure cancer in 2045 by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Ok, but you also have to consider the fact that they'd send the shuttle up there anyway without gold to haul, so assuming you don't have to bring anything back it's a free ride. Otherwise, just don't use the shuttle - stick a launch capsule with heat tiles on a refurbished saturn, stuff the gold in there, and just drop it down.

      There's most certainly a way to break even in that situation. Hell, worst case scenario you glue heat tiles to the gold itself and let half burn up on reentry - you've still got the other half as almost pure profit.

      Jw

  13. what day is it?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    crazy company day. Will these frontiersmen be taking atomic computers with them?

  14. What an awesome idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong?

  15. I've heard this before... by underling · · Score: 1

    Will the company be called "Union Aerospace Corporation?"

    1. Re:I've heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naah ... they'll call themselves "Space Construction Operation" and they won't actually send anything to Mars. They'll just sue anyone who does go.

  16. Reak site by pr0nbot · · Score: 4, Funny


    Hmm... their real website seems to be slashdotted:

    http://www.ua-corp.com/

  17. Nope, don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The capital required for such an endeavor may be just out of a startup's ability to procure.

  18. OMFG LOL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea right! Man hasn't set foot on the moon for 30 years! The International Space Station is a leaking creaking pile of garbage (Literally). The space shuttle fleet is grounded again with no replacement in sight, unless you are one of the "space elevator" nut jobs. And these guys are not only going to land on Mars, they're going to mine it?!?!?! Will they use a carbon nanotube pulley system to bring the ore back to earth???

    LOL. Where can I get some of this shit your smoking??

  19. Looks good. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is one of the better ideas for a startup company I've heard, but then again I've spent the past 15 years or so on the Internet.

  20. Cool! Where do I sign up? by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    So lets see... by that time, I'll be about fifty years old -- and if my wife has her way, I'll have about twenty kids or so, not including grandchildren. Do you think they'll take me??

  21. Wow.. by angst7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Welcome to BS day on Slashdot. Although by 2025 they may well have a 6 gHz laptop with 2TB of disk space to take along.

    --
    StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
    1. Re:Wow.. by xutopia · · Score: 1

      by that time the laptops will be so extremely hot that they'll call them notebooks instead.

    2. Re:Wow.. by stuartkahler · · Score: 1

      by 2025 they may well have a 6 gHz laptop with 2TB of disk space
      I hope this'll be readily available by 2010-2012. By 2025, I'm expecting those specs on the cell phone PDA implanted in my arm.

    3. Re:Wow.. by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean cookbooks?

      --
      Here we go again!
    4. Re:Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although by 2025 they may well have a 6 gHz laptop with 2TB of disk space to take along.

      Just in time for Longhorn.

      Too bad you'll have to wait another 20 years for the damn thing to boot Longhorn.

    5. Re:Wow.. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      It's Vista now.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  22. IRON! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

    Iron as far as the eye can see! I'm tellin' ya, it's the motherlode!

    Too bad its not called the Gold Planet, or this might actually turn a profit.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    1. Re:IRON! by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      Even mining solid gold would not turn a profit. It's just too expensive (A few thousand dollars per pound to get into EARTH ORBIT, let alone TO MARS AND BACK) for any known material to really be an economic Winner Mars-mining wise.

    2. Re:IRON! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      See, that was a joke. Now if Mars was made of Unobtainium, then we'd be in business.

      Warning: The above comment was made in jest. The poster is aware there is no such element as Unobtainium, and that the movie The Core sucked.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    3. Re:IRON! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Never underestimate the economics of scale.

      For reference, here's the Delta-V chart that I'll be referencing.

      Now getting on and off of Mars is the most expensive part. Yet at 4.1 km/s, it's far from unachievable. Because of the way that rocket engines work, the greater the Delta-V that is required, the more expensive the rocket must be. Since the delta-v for Low Mars Orbit is a bit more than half that of Earth. So it is quite feasible that existing rocketry could be used at a far lower cost.

      Once in LMO, things become quite inexpensive. A Delta-V of 0.9km/s is all that's required to reach Phobos. With that tiny amount of Delta-V (which can be cheaply obtained via the use of ION engines), the spacecraft could pick up a ride on the Interplanetary Superhighway. This transfer orbit would allow the craft to get its cargo to Earth on little more than station keeping fuel.

      Once at Earth, the cargo could then be decelerated and dropped into the ocean, riding atop a simple, mass produced, heat shield. The epoxy solutions used in the capsules should work extremely well and would be inexpensive to mass produce. The cargo craft could then boost itself back to the Superhighway (again with inexpensive ION engines) and repeat the process. Things become even more efficient when cargo is sent both ways.

      A more in-depth analysis would be required to determine the precise craft and materials necessary to turn a profit, but it certainly *is* doable with modern technology. And with a colony on Mars, we could support Asteriod mining, a far more profitable venture.

  23. Umm - ahem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they plan to get there how ????

    You see the secret guys is to first build your rocket and then go to the big red planet. Just FYI.

    Might want to change the business plan to include one rocket. Maybe two just in case the first one goes boom.

  24. And then all hell breaks lose! by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 1

    well, at least in doom3 it does.

    --
    time is a perception of a being's consciousness
    time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
  25. New Startup by carterhawk001 · · Score: 1

    to Start Mining Operations of Uranus. Expecting first scouting missions to Urectum by 2015, establish base in Colonus by 2025. Don't know what the big stink is about.

    1. Re:New Startup by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "to Start Mining Operations of Uranus"

      Where do you think they got their business plan?

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  26. Notice the images are of Canadians by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    my guess is they figure a joint Canada-EU trip will get there first, or possibly a joint Canada-China trip - if the latter, the first colony will most likely be named Mars Base Bethune. ..

    I for one welcome our new Canadian space overlords and hope they have a fun trip to Mars.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  27. We should look at the asteroid belt first by Krystlih · · Score: 1

    In my opinion we should look at mining the astroid belt in our solar system before attempting mars. There are going to be plenty of resources there, which will be much easier to send back given we dont have to contend a huge gravitational force like a planet. Not to mention we know so little about mars we dont know what kind of natural things we might be interrupting by mining it.

    1. Re:We should look at the asteroid belt first by brainstyle · · Score: 1
      You might be interested in Spacedev, then. I'm pretty sure that's what they're talking about with the "space resource extraction" bit in their roadmap.

      Considering the cost of putting stuff in space, asteroids have the big advantage of not requiring expensive rocket launches to get anything in orbit. If you're patient, you can move your ore back to Earth (or wherever in the solar system) a lot more cheaply than you would if you first had to get out of a planet's gravity well.

      --
      "Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
      "Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
    2. Re:We should look at the asteroid belt first by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading things correctly, the idea isn't to send anything back. Its to provide materials for further colonization of Mars and possibly as a base for further exploration of the solar system.

      Besides, it seems like it would be rather hard to actually mine materials from asteroids. Seems landing on a big one would be near impossible and "collecting" smaller ones would require a lot of running around and manuvering (expending lots of fuel).

    3. Re:We should look at the asteroid belt first by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      I have invested (small) in SpaceDev. Hey, someday they may amount to something, the stock is cheap and they DO seem to be making and selling products. I encourage anyone who thinks Space is the future to put a little money down on it.

    4. Re:We should look at the asteroid belt first by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Actually I would think the Moon would be the first target of any mining activities. It is close enough that you could cycle people back to Earth fairly regularly with the cargo runs and if things went wrong you would have the possibility of sending a rescue mission or having them leave for Earth. And a Moon base would make a good jumping off point (pun intended) to get to the astroid belt and then on to Mars.

      Bring back Major Matt Mason and his team of astronauts! They had a Moon base and crawlers back in the 60's.

  28. Really big diamonds by Bob3141592 · · Score: 1

    I hope they find some really big frickin' diamonds on Mars, because otherwise all they're likely to find is dirt, and the trucking costs getting it back here are gonna kill 'em.

    --
    In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
    1. Re:Really big diamonds by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Diamonds are nothing but carbon. The only reason diamonds are worth money is because De Beers tells us you can't get laid without them.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:Really big diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only reason diamonds are worth money is because De Beers tells us you can't get laid without them."

      Apparently, they are correct.

    3. Re:Really big diamonds by NotWorkSafe · · Score: 1

      Especially with gas prices as high as they are.

      --
      There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
  29. Sounds like publicity... by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

    I'll bet their entire company plan was to make the funny news. Where do I sign up to invest?

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  30. Can anyone say: by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    RED FACTION

    1. Re:Can anyone say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Faction.

  31. Do it, then I'll care by bradbeattie · · Score: 1

    A company plans to do something, huh? Big surprise. Wake me up when they're actually on Mars. No point in getting ourselves all worked up whenever someone plans something.

    1. Re:Do it, then I'll care by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      No point in getting ourselves all worked up whenever someone plans something.

      Don't know why that made me think of Vista.

  32. why not alaska by brainchill · · Score: 1

    why not just mine alaska ... it's just as big a wasteland and it's closer to home

    1. Re:why not alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would love to mine Alaska. I hear they have oil up there!

    2. Re:why not alaska by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      They already do. The problem is that mining shits pollutants all over the environment. And my fair state is one of the few parts of the USA that hasn't been completely paved over.

      I don't think they are going to make a dime trying to mine Mars as the shipping costs are going to be insane. But I'd rather people mine dead rocks than polute thriving ecosystems.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    3. Re:why not alaska by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Before long, you'll have huge bridges leading to every uninhabited tiny island in the state, and 8-lane interstates connecting one patch of permafrost to another one 500 miles away.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:why not alaska by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Well, you will if your senator is head of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

      Cough http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=aWA7joXO0bRk cough.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  33. A copy of their Business Plan by saddino · · Score: 1

    Can be found here.

  34. Calendar Check by yimitz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone got a Martian calendar? I bet it says "April 1st."

    1. Re:Calendar Check by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to the one I created, it's Scorpius 10, XXIV

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  35. Commercialization of Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is a very good thing. That ultimately is what will drive manned space exploration.

  36. Maybe not diamonds, but ice crystals by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I hope they find some really big frickin' diamonds on Mars, because otherwise all they're likely to find is dirt, and the trucking costs getting it back here are gonna kill 'em.

    It's likely they'll find water, so if they mix it with the dirt, they can make mud pies and perhaps export Authentic Martian Pottery to wealthy collectors.

    Then you too can own some Martian Pot.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  37. yeah... by skeletor935 · · Score: 0
    and Grizzly Adams had a beard.

    I'm not even going to RTFA

  38. First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Until we see a declaration like the following from a country that pays at least lip service to property rights (and that has sufficient weapons to back up said property rights on behalf of shareholders) any attempt to privately colonize Mars and sell its resources for profit, is doomed.
    The first person to land on Mars, and to live there some specified minimum duration (such as a year), and to return alive owns the entire Red Planet.

    Who Should Own Mars?

    Think of it as the ultimate X-Prize. An entire planet for the taking.

    The day anyone comes up with a viable business plan (which the guys in the Wired article, unfortunately, haven't done yet - and probably can't do so long as there are no private property rights in space), put me on the first colony ship of homesteaders.

    1. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by blckmage · · Score: 1

      This will just mean that Mars will go to the first rich guy with nothing better to do with his money.. Planet Microsoft, anyone?

    2. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by MaceyHW · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for just the Western Hemisphere (that's the good hemisphere)...

    3. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh except last time i checked the US government, or any other one for that matter, doesn't have the authority to declare Mars an "X-prize". And i highly doubt the rest of the world would recognize such a claim anyhow.

    4. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      put me on the first colony ship of homesteaders.

      You obviously haven't watched the right movies.

      Put me on the second colony ship of homesteaders.

    5. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't need a country here on Earth to give you claim to Mars.
      Just go there, start your own country, and claim Mars as your own ;)

      Of course you wouldn't be able to come back (no one is going to accept a visa from the country of Mars and what not) so you better make sure you have everything in place first for a permanent stay.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    6. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think of it as the ultimate X-Prize. An entire planet for the taking.

      Good point. I'll let you colonize Mars, build up some nice infrastructure--then I'll drop rocks on you from orbit. The first person can plant their flag--but unless you can defend it, too, that doesn't do you a whole lot of good. And the value of the Mars settlement is directly proportional to the interest a marauder would have on taking it away.

      There's not a lot of legal protection, either, as naturally all of our treaties encompass only earth territories. Even a formal declaration, should there even be one, from the UN that the first person to the New World gets to lay claim to it is only as good as long as it's enforceable--the French planned to take the Louisiana territory back from us, even though we had legally bought it.

      So go ahead, lay claim all you want. But you better look over your shoulder, too.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    7. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by twd · · Score: 1

      Right on; maybe not the whole planet, but certainly a large tract. This is a large part of the history of Canada, with an enormous exclusive land grant to the Hudson's Bay Company driving the settlement of Prince Rupert's Land.

      The huge risk of the enterprise was offset by equivalently huge potential rewards.

      --
      ~*~ Tara
    8. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by pizen · · Score: 1

      I thought Valentine Michael Smith owned Mars.

    9. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If there's one thing that aboriginal Americans, hippies and real estate appraisers agree on, it's the idea that no one "owns" land. You only hold rights to use the land as long as those rights can be *enforced*. In other words, "just because I was there first" does not give someone any more of a valid claim to Mars.

      In such a lawless land as Mars, with no police or military to enforce property rights, your "ownership" of Martian land at any one time is equal to the surface area of the bottom of your boots. Anyone could go to Mars, set up camp somewhere and have just as much claim to that land as someone with a base somewhere else. And, if someone with bigger guns can take your land, then he will "own" it.

      For example, see what happens if you forget to pay your property taxes during a quarter...you'll learn the hard truth about property rights.

    10. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > > Think of it as the ultimate X-Prize. An entire planet for the taking.
      >
      > Good point. I'll let you colonize Mars, build up some nice infrastructure--then I'll drop rocks on you from orbit. The first person can plant their flag--but unless you can defend it, too, that doesn't do you a whole lot of good. And the value of the Mars settlement is directly proportional to the interest a marauder would have on taking it away.

      Which is why I added two caveats in my original post.

      1) The country that makes the declaration has to pay "at least lip service" to property rights. That barely knocks China off the list. Japan's fine. Most European nations (EU or otherwise), as well as the current USA are also probably OK.

      2) "...and that has sufficient weapons to back up said property rights on behalf of shareholders. " In other words, the Principality of Sealand doesn't count. Neither does Canada.

      The weapons I spoke of are those currently operated by Earth-based governments, and currently employed to defend the interests of the Terran shareholders, not the Martian homesteaders.

      > There's not a lot of legal protection, either, as naturally all of our treaties encompass only earth territories. Even a formal declaration, should there even be one, from the UN that the first person to the New World gets to lay claim to it is only as good as long as it's enforceable--the French planned to take the Louisiana territory back from us, even though we had legally bought it.

      Correct.

      Not to bring the French into it again -- but the French could have use force to defend their economic interests in their oil contracts with Iraq in early 2003. They chose not to - and probably for everyone's benefit. Had they chosen to defend those assets with force, the US would have been placed in an... interesting position, to say the least.

      > So go ahead, lay claim all you want. But you better look over your shoulder, too.

      Exactly.

      But with all that in mind -- let's go back to your original rock-dropping proposal: Whether MarsCorp's Terran assets are protected by the nuclear weapons of the USA, China, Great Britian, Russia, India, or France, or whether they're simply defended the rock fortresses of Switzerland and Japan, wouldn't it be cheaper (in terms of not having to rebuild the devastated infrastructure from scratch) for the Mnemnonician government to simply tax its citizens and authorize itself to simply buy a 20% interest in MarsCorp?

      The better parallel isn't so much the French taking back the Louisiana Purchase, but the Chinese government (through CNOOC) attempting to purchase oil and gas assets by proposing mergers with Western producers.

      It's better to pay dollars (even if those dollars are immediately exchanged or gold or Euros) for Western oil and gas assets than to risk war by taking them by force. The rising price tag of our own adventures to secure Gulf oil assets is but one example -- considering the current price tag, we probably should have simply outbid the France/Germany axis and bought the goddamn country out from under Saddam, with all its oil assets intact.

    11. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      but if no one owns Martian propety, how can anyone grant the right to own it via some Martian X-Prize?
      This will be an interesting legal question in about 100 years!

    12. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Put me on the second colony ship of homesteaders.

      That would be the B Ark, right?

    13. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by lxs · · Score: 1

      The first person to land on Mars, and to live there some specified minimum duration (such as a year), and to return alive owns the entire Red Planet.

      Sounds like geocentric thinking to me. Are we talking earth years or mars years?

    14. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > If there's one thing that aboriginal Americans, hippies and real estate appraisers agree on, it's the idea that no one "owns" land.

      And apart from the real estate appraisers... who still has the use of most of the land in North America today?

    15. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping someone would make this reference. Alas, my faith in humanity is restored.

    16. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was also looking for someone to reference this. Now if we could just get some good stories to go along with the good comments.

    17. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Plus, it only costs one lousy bead...

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    18. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is where and why humanity will eventually fail when it comes to endeavors like this.

      To base an undertaking like this on capitalism and licensing/property rights is a perspective that 99% of the people on this planet would seem to think is a reasonable. Why spend the money/manpower/resources on such an endeavor, unless there is profits to be made, right?

      The more logical reason to go vs. PROFITS, is:
      a: Advance technological innovation through mission-oriented goals (see post-50's technological revolution to current)
      b: Allow International communities to further improve there social and economic status justify an "(insert) Mentality" of "Going to Mars"
      options:American, Capitalist, Greedy

      The sad fact is, HUMANITY is not ready to colonize another planet.

      I'll give you the simple anser: WE CAN"T TAKE CARE OF THIS PLANET, WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK WE CAN TAKE CARE OF ONE WAITING TO BE COLONIZED!!!

      I would LOVE to see us go to MARS!!!!!!!

      I won't be holding my breathe till we do though ....

    19. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by runderwo · · Score: 1

      And if you don't "own" the land, but simply reside on it until your claim to it can no longer be enforced, then upon what moral basis does using force to protect that claim stand? Without recognizing ownership as a natural right, the chain of reasoning behind protecting property quickly goes circular.

    20. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Morality is a human construct, as is ownership. Don't let this recent bout of civilization that's been going on for the last 50,000 years trick you into thinking that any of our social constructs and assumptions entitle you to *anything.*

    21. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be CNOOC(3-)?

    22. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      The better parallel isn't so much the French taking back the Louisiana Purchase, but the Chinese government (through CNOOC) attempting to purchase oil and gas assets by proposing mergers with Western producers.

      Not a bad point; maybe it'd be cheaper to buy your way in than to take it by force. However, to bring back the CNOOC example: shares in the stakes might not be for sale. And since we refused to sell CNOOC to China, I feel pretty good about predicting that they'll resort to force to take that oil next--their need for oil isn't going to go away just because the US Congress got it's panties in a bunch, but they tried the easy way to no avail.

      So perhaps I'd drop rocks on you, or perhaps I'd buy in--that's an accounting evaluation. But my point remains--just getting their first doesn't give you a birthright to anything.

      Now to go offtopic: while China may not take oil by force, yet, any UN sanction against Iran is going to have a damned hard time enforcing it with China. I think China will either block the sanction with a Security Council Veto, or they're counting on it to drive Iran's price for oil down. In any case, their need for oil, which could have been slaked through legitimate ends like buying CNOOC, is now going to drive them to extremes that I think we'll appreciate less, and also be less able to stop.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    23. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The early bird gets the worm.

      But the second mouse get the cheese.

    24. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > So perhaps I'd drop rocks on you, or perhaps I'd buy in--that's an accounting evaluation. But my point remains--just getting their first doesn't give you a birthright to anything.

      Yup. I'm not really trying to argue that point -- A "law" that says "first guy to mars owns it" is merely a more polite way of saying "anyone who drops rocks on the first guy gets rocks dropped his friends back home".

      > Now to go offtopic: while China may not take oil by force, yet, [ ... ]

      Not as off-topic as it looks. The Mars situation is merely the idealized case of frontier land/resources.

      The colonization of North America was slightly less-than-ideal case, but was pretty close. (Unless you were a Native American, for whom it was highly less-than-ideal, as there was a 90% chance that you'd died of smallpox centuries before paleface even got clonse enough to throw a lead rock at you :)

      The scramble for oil reserves, where everybody already has a claim to it, is gonna be... well, even further from the ideal situation.

      As for CNOOC, the UN, Iran, and so on -- we agree. A few days after we said "no" to CNOOC buying our oil, CNPC decided to buy some oil next door in Canada.

      By the time it's all sorted out, even some of the smaller players will probably have rocks to throw around. May we live in interesting times.

  39. fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone remember in Back to the Future Part 3 where in the year 2015 we all drive flying cars and electronic self-lacing shoes and stuff. This is the same thing. We are definitely not going to be colonizing Mars in 20 years any more than people will be driving flying cars in 10 years. What a load of crap. This is all talk and will never happen. There are far too many energy problems in the world right now to expect that in 10 years they will all be solved and suddenly we have enough resources to make hundreds of trips to mars and back every year.

    There is absolutely no way that anything like this could possibly be profitable.

  40. I've got an even better idea! by Nevtje(hr · · Score: 1, Funny

    if they actually make it there, they should skip mining. instead, spray-paint Mars grey! ...so that by the time space-tourism really catches on, the first tourism site will be.... dum dum dum

    the death star!

    --
    Three rings for the Elven-kings in the sky
  41. Even if the built the "Biosphere 2"... by RUFFyamahaRYDER · · Score: 1

    Even if they built their Biosphere who would want to live there? Sure, it would be fun to vacation on Mars just to see what it was like, and a ton of people with a lot of money would do that.. But to live there? Noway... You can't even go outside!

    We take that for granted right now since most of us stay inside all day working, but to never be able to run around freely outside is terrible. Plus you'd have to stare at a red surface all day, everyday... No oceans, no greenery, just red rocks. Yuck!

    1. Re:Even if the built the "Biosphere 2"... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      Yuck!

      Who cares?

      Can I take my pr0n collection and do they have broadband internet access?

      Man's gotta have his priorities.

  42. Never going to happen -- ever by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Mark my words, the minute anyone gets anywhere close to something like this happening, the governments of the world will shut it down. Mars is a completely unique environment, and the environmentalists will make sure Mars gets put off limits "temporarily" to colonization while they do "further studying before human contamination."

    Of course, the temporary ban will eventually become permanent.

    Can't happen? It already has -- See Antarctica. No one owns it. Most of the countries of the world have a treaty not to exploit it.

    Think they'll just say, "Let them try and stop us? We're there, they aren't. We have guns." Please. Get over your frontier fantasies. That was possible when you had frontiers with fairly hospitable terrain (even if harsh). With Mars, there's no way you can set up a self-sufficient colony right away. They'll HAVE to have support from Earth. If Earth wants to shut them down, they'll just stop the supply rockets from going.

    Planetary colonization will NEVER happen in this solar system. Look to asteroids and colonies in space for your space travel future.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by El_Smack · · Score: 0

      Well, if it's never going to happen here, then it's never going to happen anywhere. Space it just too big for us to ever get past the Kupier Belt, let alone another even vaugly hospitipal place like Mars. And having a large "space station" type setup only makes sense if we are using it to get somewhere else.

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    2. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      And having a large "space station" type setup only makes sense if we are using it to get somewhere else.

      Actually, those make a hell of a lot more sense than trying to set up a colony on a planet. You can spin them for Earth-like gravity. You can expand them as much as you want. You don't have a gravity well for supplies. You can make the environment as green as you want. The view of the universe is unmatched.

      Compare that to, say, Mars. Low-gravity health problems, and it's basically an ugly rock. I understand the attraction of wanting to set foot on another world, but once you get over that romantic notion, it's a pretty damn dull place that's a PITA to live on.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by biraneto2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      mining antarctica is not worth it. History shows us no government will stop mining or extracting resources from a country because of environment reasons. If the oil in antartica was cheap enough to extract, and that was not harmful for our planet (as mining mars is not) the USA or another country would probably already have done that by seeking for some WMD. :)

    4. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by EEPS · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt the "governments of the world" will shut down potential colonization and exploitation of mars (if it ever becomes viable) especialy if money is concerned. Need an example? America... Your claim about environmentalist stoping a country from expanding to mars is completely wrong. Only in america and western european countries has environmentalism gaind a powerful foot hold, but hell, if we don't do it China Will! By the time a plan like this becomes possible China will be ten times more powerful than america and our little input wont matter. They will do whatever they want. Why does no one own Antarctica? because no body wants it! Do you want to live in Antarctica? Up until recently there were parts where no human has ever been! And by the way who do you think were the first people to visit those places, a group of chinese researchers! Humans have always expanded into new territories and this will be no different if it ever becomes viable.

    5. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Can't happen? It already has -- See Antarctica. No one owns it. Most of the countries of the world have a treaty not to exploit it.

      Antarctica will be exploited and divvied up politically as soon as resources in other places become more scarce.

      The Antarctic treaty merely delayed the innevitable and prevented armed conflict in the short term.

      Even now some limited colonization is being encouraged by Argentina and many nations hold onto their territorial claims.

      If an economic case can be made for mining mars, then it will be done eventually, as long as we retain the technological means to do so. Fact is that no minerals are so rare and useful on earth as to make mining them on Mars make any economic sense. Think of the most rare substances on earth and likely it would cost far more to bring them from Mars. The only thing that would make mars mining feasibile would be a radically more efficient means of transportation.

    6. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can't happen? It already has -- See Antarctica. No one owns it. Most of the countries of the world have a treaty not to exploit it"

      And it has already happened in space as well. See "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" (http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm)

      Article II - Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means

      International treaties basically work along the lines of "I won't pull shit if you don't". So better to have status quo than rip up ratified treaties for some rinkydink company.

      JK

    7. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by k12linux · · Score: 0

      Whether or not we will ever colonize Mars is probably the least of the problems with this plan.

      How do you generate the energy required to convert raw ores into something that is valuable enough to justify the cost of sending it off planet? You'd better have a cheap energy source.

      But what will you use? Solar? There is 1/16th the solar energy at that distance (http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/sunshin e.asp) so probably not. Besides you'd have to bring the panels with you so it would be pretty hard to build a large solar array.

        Oil or coal? Considering how little luck we've had finding signs of life on Mars, is it likely that enough bio-mass existed in the past to form these fossil fules? Even if it did how long/deep would someone have to dig to get it... and exactly what kind of mining equipment can you take with you on a trip to Mars? (It can't run on gas/diesel... at least not until you can extract and refine enough for your own mining equipment.)

      Nuclear Fission? Hope there is a good supply of plutonium or uranium on Mars that is easy to access. Lets not forget the need to process it to a purity needed for a sustained reaction.

      Nuclear fusion? Measurements of Mars's hydrogen levels (http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/wpb/sci_mars.html) only show levels in the 16ppm range. Besides we'll need a fairly portable reactor or at least something that can be hauled to Mars and assembled there.

      But, if you create such an energy source (portable fusion backpacks?) then why go to Mars? Surely with abundant cheap energy we could continue to mine our own planet for a very long time before costs would make going to a distant planet feasable.

      The only way it pays to haul stuff into space from a planet is when the substance is extremely rare and extremely valuable. Now, if they were going to set up a spice mining colony... well then that would be different!

    8. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by TheSync · · Score: 1

      From that site: "Reliable authorities have estimated that it would cost between US$65 and US$80 per barrel (and that was several years ago) to get oil from Antarctica."

      Hmmm, might be time to go South! Thar's oil in dem glaciers!

    9. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what will you use? Solar? There is 1/16th the solar energy at that distance (http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/sunshin e.asp) so probably not.

      Wrong, the article says there's 1/16 as much solar energy when you go out as far as Jupiter.

      There is 43% as much sunlight per unit area at the outer limit of Mars's atmosphere as at the outer limit of Earth's atmosphere (inverse square of distance, 1.52 times as far); and I suspect that Earth's atmosphere absorbs a greater proportion that Mars's does.

    10. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I understand the attraction of wanting to set foot on another world, but once you get over that romantic notion, it's a pretty damn dull place that's a PITA to live on.
      Absolutely! Why would anyone want to live in America, when 15th Century Europe is so nice? There's nothing to find there but sea monsters and Injuns. Living there would be a real PITA, dude!

      You are one weird dude, seriously. Your posts to Slashdot are all so incredibly short sighted. You seem to get a kick of of raining on everyone else's parade, regardless of whether it's even logical.And the list goes on and on... Over three thousand comments... It would almost be worth paying to be a Slashdot subscriber just so I could quote more of them. Why are you such a wet blanket? In the last hundred years or so, we've gone from building the first "horseless carriage" to roving the surface of Mars with robots. And you really think that's it? We're done? In a hundred thousand years, we'll still be stuck on this one little planet? Boy, overcrowding is really going to be a bitch at that point.

      Let me guess -- you've never invented anything. Let me hazzard another crazy guess -- you've never even had a desire to invent anything. AI, medicine, space travel... It's all just too risky and we should all just be happy with the world exactly as it is. There is no room for improvement. Good attitude, mister "Reality Master." Thank goodness history is full of people who were willing to look slightly beyond the current "reality" to bigger and better things. Dipshit.
    11. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Absolutely! Why would anyone want to live in America, when 15th Century Europe is so nice? There's nothing to find there but sea monsters and Injuns. Living there would be a real PITA, dude!

      Dude, are you seriously comparing a lush open country, brimming over with natural resources, water, animals -- to Mars? Mars has NOTHING. It is literally a lifeless, airless rock. Why do you think no one settles in Antarctica?

      Why are you such a wet blanket?

      "The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth."

      Seriously, I'm not. I just like to keep things in perspective. Very few things in this world live up to the hype. Progress is almost always very gradual.

      And you really think that's it? We're done?

      Where did I say we're done? We're absolutely not done. Will we have space travel someday? Absolutely. But colonies in space are way more likely to be fun to live in.

      Let me guess -- you've never invented anything. Let me hazzard another crazy guess -- you've never even had a desire to invent anything. AI, medicine, space travel... It's all just too risky and we should all just be happy with the world exactly as it is.

      Actually, I invented a medical information system that dominated its niche for about ten years before the company that bought it never improved it and ran it into the ground. Let's see, prior to that, I invented a windowing system for character-based terminals on an operating system you've never heard of. I also invented a charting package that did full-page color output printing in only 48K of memory. Ah, those were the days.

      I suppose I could also mention that I invented the full-wave rectifier when I was twelve years old. I was really pissed off when my dad told me it'd already been invented. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    12. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by ElectroBot · · Score: 1

      It was agreed that Antarctica would remain nutreal/research continent because there isn't anything of value there except lots and lots of ice. Besides who wants to own/control/live on a icy desert. Mars on the other hand has lost of valuable minerals and could be heated up over time to allow for colonization (oxygen masks would be required for travel between domes). It will be colonized! and within the next 100 years. The question is by whom? (China, India or the corporate world)

    13. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by danila · · Score: 1

      I wish that Slashdot required a license to post. Migth have cut down on stupid uninformed posts...

      If you really think that other planets will NEVER be colonised, you are a MORON. Period.

      The fact that you liked some other articles and chose to believe them and not this one doesn't matter. You are not qualified to speak about this topic. In the good old days people were not afraid to say "I don't know" or "I don't have an opinion on this matter". But now every moron feels he's an expert and can speak in all caps about what will and what will not happen in this solar system.

      Look, Mr. Smartypants, do you know how the mass of the propellant decreases in a relativistic rocket in hyperbolic motion? How does the ratio between the hyperbolic uniform proper acceleration and the proper speed of the ejected radioactive fragments propelling the probe in the opposite direction change?

      What? Don't feel so smart now about space exploration, do you? If you can't answer such a trivial question, how the heck are you qualified to speak about planetary exploration in the infinite future? The answer is - you are not qualified to do so. So shut you mouth.

      Now that we have silence in the class, kids, your task is to find out how having some form of molecular manufacturing (not universal replicator/assembler, but close) and some form of advanced AI (not human-level, but intelligent) around 2020-2025 will affect the viability of the 4Frontiers's plans.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    14. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Look, Mr. Smartypants, do you know how the mass of the propellant decreases in a relativistic rocket in hyperbolic motion?

      Um, why are you throwing technical details out at me? Where did I say it wasn't technically feasible to colonise the planets? And BTW, everything is "relativistic". What, is that versus a non-relativistic rocket?

      If you can't answer such a trivial question, how the heck are you qualified to speak about planetary exploration in the infinite future? The answer is - you are not qualified to do so. So shut you mouth.

      If you had bothered to read and understand what I posted, you would see I was making a political point about colonizing planets. And if you had read my other post, you would have seen where I think stations and cities floating in space are the future, not planet colonization.

      your task is to find out how having some form of molecular manufacturing (not universal replicator/assembler, but close) and some form of advanced AI (not human-level, but intelligent) around 2020-2025 will affect the viability of the 4Frontiers's plans.

      Not gonna happen in that time frame.

      a) Molecular manufacturing is not even close, and might well be impossible ("sticky fingers" problems, etc). At least, impossible in the way people generally think of this. We have biological assembly certainly, but that's a different type of problem than what you're probably talking about. I'd say at least 50 years out, if not 100 years.

      B) AI: We don't even have a clue how to do intelligent machines. AI researchers have been trying to change the definition of what AI really means, but when we talk about intelligent machines, we don't even have a theory of how to do it, much less the technology for an implementation. I'd say at least 100 years away, but I could be talked into 50 years.

      Don't think it'll take that long? Then you need to look at some history.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    15. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by danila · · Score: 1

      You aren't qualified to talk on technical issues (BTW, a relativistic rocket is a rocket travelling with relativistic speeds, that is fast enough to feel the relativistic effects - time slowing down, mass increasing; a non-relativistic rocket is a rocket travelling slowly enough not to feel this effect to any significan degree). I suspect that you aren't qualified to comment on political issues either. The fact that you have the right to vote doesn't give your opinions any weight.

      You talk about "sticky fingers", which shows that you heard something about nanotechnology, but you are not qualified, because you haven't been following the Drexler-Sculley debate, you don't know what is the established consensus. You are completely clueless and yet you arrogantly assume that you can make confident statements on the state of things. You can't, you don't know jack shit. Your estimates such as "at least 50 years out" are not worth shit. You can't master reality, unless you learn something. Go to school, read a book, listen to someone who is smarter and more knowledgeable. But please, for Universe's sake, stop insulting people's intelligence with your ignorant opinions.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    16. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      You aren't qualified to talk on technical issues

      As I said, what do technical issues have to do with the discussion at hand? Oh yeah, nothing. If the subject was the feasability of a certain rocket technology, you might have a point. As it stands, you threw out a complete non-sequitur. I suppose it's too much to ask that you take responsibility for that.

      I suspect that you aren't qualified to comment on political issues either. The fact that you have the right to vote doesn't give your opinions any weight.

      Oh, I see. You're one of those. You may be interested to know that this is known as "argumentum ad verecundiam" or "appeal to authority", which is a logical fallacy. You may want to read up about it.

      But since you ask, my qualifications are that I'm smarter than almost everyone. Not that I don't make mistakes -- I certainly do, and I'm up-front in admitting to them. Only a fool thinks they know everything, which brings us to you. I happily assert my opinions as opinions, which may be wrong, yet you seem unable to question your own beliefs.

      You are completely clueless and yet you arrogantly assume that you can make confident statements on the state of things.

      And yet you arrogantly assert that you know anything about it, when it's pretty damn obvious you don't know anything, particularly about historical trends in developing technology. Almost nothing goes from nonexistent to practical in twenty years, especially things that are unbelievably hard like nanomachines and artificial intelligence.

      Sheesh, get a clue. I suspect you're rather young and idealistic, which is not a bad thing, but it can set yourself up for disappointment. I also suspect you're guilty of another flaw in thinking -- selective gathering of evidence (related to a concept known as "cognitive bias"). Chomsky, who is otherwise brilliant in his field, is grotesquely guilty of this in his politics.

      You only accept facts and evidence for things that back up what you think you already know, and throw out anything else as "jack shit" that doesn't fit your world view. Look at your hostility to me. Not once have you actually refuted what I had in my original post. You've only been screaming and holding your hands over your ears.

      And the utter arrogance in your posts! You worship at the altar of authority, yet offer none yourself. Maybe you should read a few books that you don't already agree with, and broaden your horizons a bit.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    17. Re:Never going to happen -- ever by danila · · Score: 1

      The whole post is wrong and the real problem is ignored... You accuse me (!) of being arrogant and having cognitive bias... oh, irony. You made me smile, or "smarter than everyone". In your special-ed school, may be... :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  43. Already saw their movie by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    Here is how things turn out. So don't come crying to use when your astro robot dog goes psycho and destroys all your hard work and plans.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    1. Re:Already saw their movie by NotWorkSafe · · Score: 1

      It could turn out like this

      --
      There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
  44. obligatory total recall post by ghukov · · Score: 0

    as soon as they finds that alien generator and activates it, the planet will be ready for all to inhabit, what with the free air

    --
    ...because Plutonians are teh suck
    1. Re:obligatory total recall post by dc_genevieve · · Score: 1

      The Alien generator is key. Once it is activated, they can start mining and use the materials to build huge subdivisions of identical homes on 1/4 acre lots.

      In the meantime, we can continue to overpopulate the earth. You can buy an SUV that only gets 12 miles to the gallon. You can cut down all of the trees and pollute all of the water. Because by 2050, there will be a brand new home awaiting you on beautiful Mars!

  45. Planning office by OzPhIsH · · Score: 2, Funny

    C'mon guys, this news is WAY old. All of the plans have been on display for fifty years at the local planning office on Alpha Centauri.

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

  46. What a coincidence... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I had planned to lead a Miners Revolution on Mars in 2026. That and deformable terrain ;)

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:What a coincidence... by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      For those who didn't get it-the parent is refering to the theme of the FPS Red Faction-one of whose hyped features was the ability to blow your way through any part of any level.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  47. I don't have a whole lot of faith.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In their ability to get to mars when they aren't going to properly check their site before they put it up.

    "Desired Skill Sets - For Future Positions
    Engineering

            * Nuclear - power generation, propulsion blah
    "

  48. I doubt these guys really want to get to Mars by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    Keep in mind that the driver behind this project is one of the drivers behind Biosphere II. The real business plan (per TFA):
    is to build a full-scale version of the planned Mars settlement and charge visitors to tour the "Mars Settlement Research and Outreach Center." 4Frontiers hopes to have a site selected for the center by the end of this year, said company co-founder and CEO Mark Homnick
    I doubt it will raise enough cash to get to Mars. OTOH, I don't doubt that it will raise enough cash to line the pockets of the folks bootstrapping the company.
  49. BR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A new life awaits you in the offworld colonies. A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure."

  50. Profit? by mrshoe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. Fly to Mars
    2. Collect some rocks
    3. ??
    4. Profit

    Fool proof.

    --
    There are two types of people in this world: those that categorize other people and those that don't.
    1. Re:Profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It will never work! You need three ??? in step 3. Everybody knows that! sheesh! :P

  51. Gerald Bull by vlad_petric · · Score: 1
    Gerald Bull was actually on his way of getting payload into orbit with a gun, as opposed to a rocket. I'm pretty sure he would have succeeded, were he allowed to continue his research.

    Finally, what about the space elevator ?

    My point is, reaching orbit is going to get cheaper, one way or the other

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:Gerald Bull by geomon · · Score: 1

      My point is, reaching orbit is going to get cheaper, one way or the other

      Possibly. But to formulate a business plan on the slimest of possibilities sounds like a scam. We might be able to levitate the stuff into orbit; want to invest?

      And Gerald Bull was killed in Belgium because of his obsession with building his space cannon. I don't think I want to end up like ol' Gerald.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    2. Re:Gerald Bull by larkost · · Score: 1

      He wasn't killed because his ideas for a cannon could reach space, he was killed because the cannon he was working on would have been able to land a payload the size of a Volkswagen in Tel-Aviv from Bagdad, and the Mossad objected.

    3. Re:Gerald Bull by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      It would have been able to do that, had it been aim-able, and not embedded into the side of a hill, designed only to launch payloads into orbit. It is more likely he was killed either because he was coerced into helping building military-use missiles, or because he "knew too much" about too many governments, and projects.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  52. funding... by number6x · · Score: 2, Funny

    For funding we will leverage our current investnments in the golden gate and brooklyn bridges, which we just bought off some guy.

  53. Yes! It's the wrong year! by Agarax · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why are they going to start colonizing other planets the same year I start to hit a midlife crisis? I'll never make it off this rock at this rate!

    --
    Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
    1. Re:Yes! It's the wrong year! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Why are they going to start colonizing other planets the same year I start to hit a midlife crisis?

      So all the people who got rich during the 90s (and managed to invest sanely) will be able to afford extremely expensive tickets to space for their midlife crises, instead of the usual sports car.

  54. Re:In CORPORATIONS we trust by dragonp12 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hear RedPeace are going to be heading out to Mars with them.

    --
    This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.
  55. do they plan on making money by skeletor935 · · Score: 0
    because we can barely ship oil across an ocean for a decent price, somehow I don't see how flying a big ass rocket back and forth between here and Mars full of heavy rocks is going to be cheap.

    It takes us tons of fuel already to send a tiny robot to Mars. Just imagine how much fuel it would take to send a rocket there full of enough excess fuel for a return trip loaded with rocks. That's some high shipping costs!

  56. If Mars is self-sufficient, you might be right by brokeninside · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ``they (or someone) can create a viable, long term colony on mars, the moon, a space station, wherever, no laws will apply to them''

    As long as they need to trade with Earth for at least one essential items, Earth will be able to browbeat them into accepting copyright conventions.

  57. 4Frontiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have named the company "Wayland Yutani."

  58. Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

    I am so glad to see capitalism working the way it was intended. To him who gets there first is rewarded with the spoils. Yea! Lets rob another planet of it's resources and destroy it in our wake! I am sure it looks great to the corporate pillagers who take glee in the fact there are no current residents to sue them for the environmental damage they intend (sorry, inadvertently intend) to cause. Won't we ever learn from our past mistakes?

    1. Re:Capitalism at it's best by joelsanda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Won't we ever learn from our past mistakes?

      We learn plenty from our mistakes. We have numerous State and Federal departments whose intention is soley the protection of the environment.

      What we don't do is implement what we learn.

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
    2. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Ingolfke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am so glad to see capitalism working the way it was intended. To him who gets there first is rewarded with the spoils.

      Other than the fact that the company is private/public and not a government agency, this has nothing to do with capitalism. National property boundries are purely political.

      Yea! Lets rob another planet of it's resources and destroy it in our wake!

      Explain this. Who is being robbed? Although the entire plan is ludicrous, isn't it better to use resources on an uninhabited planet in a way that cannot impact the earth's environment, where evereyone lives... of course you probably believe the the removal of the minerals from Mars will reduce it's mass, resulting in changes in gravitational balance in the solar system, resulint in use moving closer to the sun, resulting in more global warming...

      Won't we ever learn from our past mistakes?
      I'm tyring to remember the last time we mined something from another planet... must have missed that in my history books. Got a link?

    3. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      So lets rob Earth instead.

      I am taking both macro and micro economics this semester and yes demand is the only thing that gets things done.

      We have the whole planet to ourselves not to mention we will never explore space and better ourselves and solve our problems on Earth if we do not take the first steps.

      Nasa is doing squat these days and commercial interest such as the Xprize brings innovation.

      America was founded for greed too. Land was very sparce in Europe and freely available in what is now North America. Sailors sought out with greed to find a cheaper way to ship tea and spices from India and China and America was born.

      If society has a need, private enterprise fullfills it.

      And PS... I consider myself a socialist.

    4. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " this has nothing to do with capitalism. National property boundries are purely political."

      ...And your point is? It's still capitalism and I don't see where national property rights or boundries have anything to do with this one.

      "Who is being robbed?"

      The planet, as I stated. Are you fimiliar with the term 'personification'? Nobody lives in the ocean on this planet, does that mean it is ok to pillage it of it's natural resources?

      "I'm tyring to remember the last time we mined something from another planet... must have missed that in my history books."

      Perhaps you have missed a lot more than you think. The history you should take an example from is our own, on this planet. Any plan to export our methods of extracting resources on another planet had ought to be measured against our past history of devistation that we have already caused with such activities. The plan as proposed by this company is no more than an exportation of our past and current mining operations on earth with a lesser regard to it's effects on the environment there than we have taken here. I would suggest a quick search on google for 'mining catastrophies' as a start for a refresher on the things you admittedly have missed.

    5. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody lives in the ocean on this planet, does that mean it is ok to pillage it of it's natural resources?

      Yes. Next?

    6. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Wow! There aren't even any trees on Mars and there are still tree-huggers there. Bravo! I hate to break it to you, but the environment on Mars is an airless ball of rock and dust. And as far as 'mining catastrophies', life is dangerous. Like Al says: "You can get killed walking your doggie"

      Be that as it may, this whole plan is silly, and most likely an attempt to bilk cash out of suckers.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    7. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Rycross · · Score: 1

      The planet, as I stated. Are you fimiliar with the term 'personification'? Nobody lives in the ocean on this planet, does that mean it is ok to pillage it of it's natural resources?

      So what you're saying is its wrong to take minerals from what amounts to a giant rock floating in space? Why is that? You basically say that we're robbing form the planet, but the planet isn't a living thing, and thus doesn't care about what we do to it. It sounds like more of a religious argument than one based on logic.

      Aside from religious preconceptions, the only reason to not mine Mars is if it somehow makes our survival less likely, and I really don't see how mining Mars will accomplish that.

    8. Re:Capitalism at it's best by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yea! Lets rob another planet of it's resources and destroy it in our wake!

      What is wrong with taking a planet's resources and potentially even "destroying" it? I mean, there's a good reason to keep from screwing Earth up too badly... we live here and we kind of like the fact that the planet doesn't kill us. Much. But Mars? Not only does no one (and most likely nothing) live there at present, the place wouldn't be any less habitable by humans if we turned the whole thing into a massive tailings pile.

      I think you've gotten so caught up in the "save the planet" idea that you've completely lost track of *why* we want to save the planet. We want to make sure Earth continues to be a nice place for us to live, that's why. That argument doesn't apply to Mars.

      Of course, this discussion is a century or two premature. The real topic at hand is how much money can be extracted from the gullible by people with grandiose goals and no prayer (or intent, most likely) of reaching them.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Parent is clearly a spy from the Red Mars faction set to embroil your Green Mars party's terraforming plans in political turmoil.

      -- RLJ

    10. Re:Capitalism at it's best by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Oh no.... You really are going to shed tears over us exploiting a frickin lifeless (except maybe for some microbes) planet? I have an idea, lets have your group stay here (since I really don't want your self-loathing memnes leaving this planet) and let the rest of us leave as we see fit.
      BTW, its the height of arrogance to think that we are "destroying the Earth". We may make it uncomfortable for the survivors, but I think that the Earth will come out in the (geological) end perfectly fine.

    11. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      "So what you're saying is its wrong to take minerals from what amounts to a giant rock floating in space"

      Finally, someone wants to know what the point is. Thank you. I don't disagree with extracting resources from another planet. I do hate to see capitalist fundamentals applied to the process. As it currently stands, no one person country or entity owns any piece of that planet, and yet we are going to allow a corporation to start taking resources from it as though they belong to them to extract and sell to us. Isn't it time that we restrict that practice to earth? The universe is not for sale to the highest bidding corporate entity, is it? Furthermore, corporations have time and again demonstrated that little to nothing else matters except the return on the dollar. I don't want to see a huge natural resource such as Mars managed in that fashion. If it is going to be mined, it should be done in a fashion that serves the interest of humanity alone, not an individual, nor a corporation or even a country. Let's not start a new ground for fighting amongst humanity on another planet. Let's do it right this time.

    12. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      "BTW, its the height of arrogance to think that we are "destroying the Earth""

      Wow, that is quite one of the most 'head in the sand' statements I have heard in a long time. Have you you read any science articles in the past several years at all? Perhaps I wouldn't go so far as to say we are as of yet 'destroying' the earth, but we are obviously doing some significant damage.

      Perhaps you missed my point though. It isn't so much that 'we' are going to 'destroy' Mars. I am all for the 'mining' of Mars or other planets. I think if it was left in the hands of individuals, resource extraction would be handled well on other planetary bodies. My beef is with allowing an entity with the singular focus of becoming wealthy by mining and selling those resources is a recipe for destruction. Corporate greed should not be our first off-world export or import.

    13. Re:Capitalism at it's best by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Aside from religious preconceptions, the only reason to not mine Mars is if it somehow makes our survival less likely

      When we've nearly made ourselves extinct on the Earth I'd hate to find out the mining operations on Mars have eliminated it as a place to colonize.

      BUT, I'd also hate to find out it was too late to begin colonization because nobody had gone up there and started the critical infrastructure needed to thrive in the hostile Martian environment.

    14. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Rycross · · Score: 1

      I think saying that we've nearly made ourselves extinct on Earth is a bit of an overreaction. 6 billion people isn't "nearly extinct," and short of meteors falling on earth, it doesn't look like anything is going to wipe us out anytime soon, not even global warming.

      But you make good points.

    15. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      "I think you've gotten so caught up in the "save the planet" idea that you've completely lost track of *why* we want to save the planet. We want to make sure Earth continues to be a nice place for us to live, that's why. That argument doesn't apply to Mars."

      Perhaps there is a bigger picture that you need to account for here. So far, Mars is the closests and only planet within our range that we could possibly survive on. If we ever have an event on Earth that would cause it to become uninhabitable, God help us, we would have to turn to the likes of Mars as a safe harbor. If we allow it to be pillaged and raped by corporate greed in the mean time, we may very well have sealed our own fate before that time, should something like that ever happen. Until we have multiple options available to us, we should not waste, or even come close to harming what could possibly be our only future refuge. Let technology advance first to the point that there are multiple options are opened up to us, then start utilizing those bodies for resources in whatever fashion you like.

    16. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      "Parent is clearly a spy from the Red Mars faction set to embroil your Green Mars party's terraforming plans in political turmoil."

      Ah Ha! You are wrong! I am from the Multi-eyed and Multi-limbed Martian Society! That's M&M/Mars for short. How dare you publically try to tie our organization to that evil and maniacle Red Mars Faction! They are beasts! They eat us for meals simply because they claim we do not melt in their hands like the Green Mars Party members.

    17. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Gruneun · · Score: 1

      no one person country or entity owns any piece of that planet, and yet we are going to allow

      This does not compute. You either lay claim to something and assume control or you make no claim and do not assume control. In other words, you must define "we" and establish who you're speaking for.

    18. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      "This does not compute. You either lay claim to something and assume control or you make no claim and do not assume control. In other words, you must define "we" and establish who you're speaking for."

      We - as in Humanity

      Whatever happened to sharing? We are taught that from pre-school on and yet we can't find a way to apply it in the real world?

    19. Re:Capitalism at it's best by BagMan2 · · Score: 1

      The resources on the planet are free. It's the effort to go an get them that we are paying for. We saw the same thing in the 19th centurty with the expansion into the west. It was a giant land grab. The land was free, all that was require is that you go to the effort to go and get it (you were required to actually make use of the land, establish a residence, etc).

      Contrary to politically correct propoganda, I think the American expansion into the west worked out rather well over all. I don't see how expansion into space should be any different. If anything, it's less offensive, since there aren't even martians to worry about (like we did to the Indians).

      Finally, there is an UNLIMITED supply of planets out there. If every person on the earth raped and pillaged a couple dozen of them, we would still have plenty left over. I say we start with the closest ones and work our way from there. Once mars is completed mined, we should move onto the next rock. Really, I couldn't care less if Mars fell into the Sun...it simply doesn't matter.

    20. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Rycross · · Score: 1

      There's always the bully who decides he'd rather take the ball than share it.

      You can't rule out greed from humanity. Its part of our nature. Capatilism works better than other solutions because instead of trying to fight greed it harnesses to productive ends.

    21. Re:Capitalism at it's best by swillden · · Score: 1

      f we ever have an event on Earth that would cause it to become uninhabitable, God help us, we would have to turn to the likes of Mars as a safe harbor.

      Ummm, Mars is uninhabitable *now*. It's an airless ball of rock and dust. What could we do that would make that worse?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:Capitalism at it's best by glenebob · · Score: 1

      We WILL share! SOMEBODY has to do the work and take the risks involved... Would you like to share the risks too? I don't really want to. They will do the hard risky work, and the rest of us will pay them for their trouble. What's so complicated about that?

    23. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Yes... Manifest Destiny II anyone?

    24. Re:Capitalism at it's best by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      Whatever happened to sharing? We are taught that from pre-school on

      Remember how much sharing pissed you off when you had to share your toys with some little snot whose only contribution to your little animal farm was simply his great talent to know to whine only when the teacher was nearby about how "he won't share!!!", and was otherwise a noncontributing, a "taker" but never a "giver", member of your little playgroup?

    25. Re:Capitalism at it's best by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      "Remember how much sharing pissed you off when you had to share your toys with some little snot"

      No, I don't. I never got that feeling, impression or thought. It is not that I didn't ever have to share with someone who was ungrateful, but I had a different sense of it all. I felt that not only did I have a toy to share, but I had a chance to demonstrate that it didn't take authority or violence to get me to do it. I did it because I wanted to feel good about something and I wanted to share that feeling too. I took joy out of knowing that this other person got a chance to see that not all people needed to be 'forced' to share with others. Even as a child I had that sense of the necessity of showing that to others. Sure there were a lot of times that it was egregiously abused by the receiver. It doesn't make the gift of sharing wrong because it was abused. It makes the abuser wrong. If we all learn from the 'takers' as you call them, then you are as much at fault as they are. I choose to be a 'giver'. Sure there is pain at times because things get taken, even though they are freely given anyways, but I have to believe that to stop doing so, makes me as wrong as the things I hate and the takers out there. Capitalism and corporate philosophy have no room for sharing or giving. It is all about taking. Can't there possibly be room for giving and sharing to? It has taken me decades to understand that that sense of sharing doesn't exist in a great number of people. They are the people who seize power and push for it to become entrenched in everyone's lives. You are too quick to believe that it is the way it has to be. It does not unless you allow it.

  59. Re:Not a Troll by vertinox · · Score: 1

    He does have a valid point. You shouldn't be able to make a post with all caps. Try it. It won't let you.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  60. If you think that's far fetched... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Their website tries to embed some weird binary crud. I think these people are actually Martians plotting a large scale invasion at the expense of their investors, what other reason could there be?

    Hint to alien webmasters: humans tend to communicate using text.

  61. As the old proverb tells us: by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

    Who controls the spice, controls Dune. Take heed.

  62. Crap They are In Florida by OneByteOff · · Score: 1

    Just when I had hope that this cool new venture might hold water I read they were from Florida.... On a side note, the colonization of Mars makes sense, if we can turn a desert into the city of Sin, we can probably turn Mars into the Planet of Sin and turn a profit... 1). Colonize Planet 2). Open Casino's 3). ???? 4). Profit !!!

  63. All your Mars base .are by bizitch · · Score: 1

    .... oh never mind

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  64. Schoolmate already has the jump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years ago, in some arty-farty exam we had to do at the age of 16, a question in the exam paper required an essay to be written: "Describe the geography of Earth as would be seen by a Martian."

    So he wrote the essay in Martian. Of course the examiners didn't understand the essay and gave him zero marks. But now I wonder... did he know more than he let on...

  65. Every single sentence in your post is wrong by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You are asserting things about which you have no clue. For example, it's much easier to get to the moon or the asteroids from Mars than from Earth. And I'm not sure why you think Mars' minerals are any more "boring" than Earth's.

    Take a look at Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" to get a clue.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by jcorno · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about our moon? There's no way it's easier. It takes 6 months by Hohman transfer orbit. If you're willing to spend that much time getting there, you could just go into a low orbit around Earth and use a really efficient booster to go in ever-wider circles until you get caught in the moon's gravity. Besides, who cares about going to the moon? This is about exploiting resources, which mostly means bringing stuff here.

      As for the asteroids, Mars is closer to the belt, but there are enough nearby to keep us rolling in iron and nickel and whatever else you want for a long time, with the added benefit of not having to deal with Mars' gravity well.

    2. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about our moon? There's no way it's easier.

      Sure it is. Tell me how much energy it takes to get from the surface of the earth to the surface of the moon, then tell me how much energy it takes to get from the surface of Mars to the Earth's moon. "Easier" wasn't about time or calculations, but energy, at least as how I read it.

    3. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      I'll be sure to inform Georgia Tech so they can take away my degree in aerospace engineering.

      If you want to build on the Moon, mine stuff on the moon. It's got useful building materials and minerals and may even have water ice in the polar craters. It doesn't have organics, which is the only thing it needs.

      If you want to build on the asteroids, why? To mine them? Mine what on them? Minerals and metals. Why? The only really interesting use for asteroid belt materials is to build in space. For what? To mine more asteroids? At some point there really does have to be an obvious, not-centuries-long-term profit making scheme.

      I've read Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", and "Entering Space" as well as his laughably bad novel about Martian colonization. I think that largely he's become a zealot, and like all zealots, exaggerates and shades information to make his Cause look better.

      Realistically, it will take over a hundred billion dollars at a minimum to set up, not a simple manned mission, but a mining operation that can produce nontrivial amounts of Stuff. With those kinds of sunk costs, and the massively high recurring costs for any such operation pretty much make it economically unfeasible until a next-next generation propulsion technology like M2P2 becomes mature.

    4. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by da'+WINS+pimp · · Score: 1

      I think GT already knows:

      --

      "I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
    5. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by Mukaikubo · · Score: 1

      I know some of those guys. They're good drinkers. Fun at parties. Etc.

    6. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      Are you talking about our moon? There's no way it's easier. It takes 6 months by Hohman transfer orbit. If you're willing to spend that much time getting there, you could just go into a low orbit around Earth and use a really efficient booster to go in ever-wider circles until you get caught in the moon's gravity.
      Ah, "just go into a low orbit around Earth"? I'm afraid that's the hard part. There is currently no "really efficient booster" with enough thrust to get a man from Earth's surface to LEO. It's much much cheaper to get from Mars surface to LMO.
      Besides, who cares about going to the moon? This is about exploiting resources, which mostly means bringing stuff here.
      I was responding to the claim that Mars resources are only useful on Mars or in Mars orbit. This is not true, because it's actually easier to get to almost anywhere in the solar system from Mars' surface than from Earth's.
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    7. Re:Every single sentence in your post is wrong by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      You just keep asserting things. If you have some kind of reasoning, evidence, or citations to back them up, I'd love to learn about it.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  66. Anyone else notice? by Gruneun · · Score: 4, Informative

    On the Bios page, the company's IP attorney is listed before the scientists and advisors.

    Maybe, it's nothing.

  67. In Related News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars has just been renamed LV-426.

  68. Contrary to Popular Rumor by gcatullus · · Score: 1

    The corporation involved is Not the UAC, but a joint venture between ACME and OMNI. They hope to mine 20,000 credits of galaxite once they transform their headquarters.

  69. expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. Now that we have destroyed this planet, why not fuck with our neighbour planet?

    That's the spirit!!

  70. The company will also... by 1800maxim · · Score: 1

    be apportioning the land on Mars.

    Due to a shipping error, they now have excess land/mines available for sale, and they wish to pass the savings on to you!

    So, come and buy your own land/mine (landmine for short) now, for 3 easy payments of $1999.95!

    Please provide your bank account information by posting it below, in good faith.

  71. Damn Outsourcing by BCTECH · · Score: 1

    UMMU - United Martian Miners Union

  72. The Question Marks by kippy · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit of a Mars but so most of this actually sounds ok. Mining Mars and using local resources from the air, ground and frozen water. The only problem with the business model is this.

    1. Sell tours of prototype settlement
    2. ???
    3. Establish 21st century East India Company
    4. Profit!

    You know what those ??? are?

    2. Fund multibillion dollar launch and trip to Mars.

    Even by Zubrin's rosiest estimates, it would be in the tens of billions and probably hundreds if too much government pork roots it way in. That's a pretty big "step two". Lots of tours perhaps? Lots of venture capital?

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anything to see it happen but, you know, the multibillion dollar trip...

    1. Re:The Question Marks by kippy · · Score: 1

      Mars nut. Not Mars but. Damn spellchecker not reading my mind.

    2. Re:The Question Marks by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      Even by Zubrin's rosiest estimates, it would be in the tens of billions and probably hundreds if too much government pork roots it way in. That's a pretty big "step two". Lots of tours perhaps? Lots of venture capital?

      It is vary hard to work out exactly what a mars base can do that you can't do on earth. Indeed, Earth has a highly reprocessed and differentiated crust (more so than any other rocky body in the solar system), meaning that virtually any mineral you can think of is going to have a more concentrated deposit somewhere on earth than anywhere else in the solar system. The big advantage of having an off-earth self sufficient base (shallower gravity well) as a staging post for more exploration actually makes Mars a bad choice, since getting off of mars is still hard. Now, if someone wants to look at putting a base on 933 Eros....

      It's a it like the reason why almost no-one lives in Antartica; there is nothing commercial you could do there that would be worth the expense of living there.

      If I were going to raise multiple-billons of dollars for Space in general, I would not do it for tourism (Exactly how many multi millionaires willing to take a 2% chance of death just for LEO are there?). I would not do it to go to the moon or mars - how is the money ever going to come back? The elephant in the room of the whole thing is a cheap and reliable way of getting stuff off of this planet.

      Don't get me wrong, I'd love more than anything to see it happen but, you know, the multibillion dollar trip..

      Absolutely.

  73. Re:First Person To Mars... OWNS IT...SOMEHOW?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who COULD possibly stake an enforceable claim to owning a planet? How would it be backed up? So much energy and work will have to be put to staying alive, why would different groups out there stage territorial pissing matches when everyone there would know that these are the only other humans to deal with for years on end. If something goes wrong in your Marsbase (which with technology, it will) is your property dispute going to keep you from asking for help, or receiving it?

  74. Cool by tsa · · Score: 1

    Cool! Looks like NASA is not going to be the first to find life on Mars!

    --

    -- Cheers!

  75. Pass the Koolaid... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Didn't something somewhat similar happen at Biosphere? Isn't it an abandoned roach infested green house, now? Didn't something somewhat similar happen at Biosphere? Isn't it an abandoned roach infested green house, now? Personally, I think this is some sort of scamola. Or maybe the Church of Scientology is involved?

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Pass the Koolaid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa!! Deja Vu!

  76. haha gundam wing by dassbaba · · Score: 1

    Are they beginning mobile suit production as well?

    --
    !@
  77. Well maybe.... by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Develop small lightweight multi gigawatt fusion power source that can do the earth to mars trip and back with 20lbs of fuel.

    Step 2: Create system for electric propulsion in outer space with close to 90% efficiency.

    Step 3: Colonize mars.

  78. UAC in action... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when do they plan to open the portal to hell? Oh well, we seem to have at leat 130 years to go before they'll try that.

  79. Slight correction by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The first person to land on Mars, and to live there some specified minimum duration (such as a year), and fight off all other would be owners, and to return alive owns the entire Red Planet.

    It's more like "the first person to Mars with guns", so more like king of the hill than an X-Prize. Perhaps the X-Prise for Mars is enough arms to hold it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Slight correction by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      More like the first person to take control and hold onto the high orbitals of Mars is going to be the King. Hypersonic aimed rock beats gun any day of the week.

  80. M.U.L.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing I thought of when I read the article title was the old game M.U.L.E.

    Those were the days...mining smithore, starving your friends colonies..

  81. Just what we need? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is just what we need to kick start the next phase of space exploration? With private companies attempting to do things like this, they aren't subject to the vast sea of requirements of government agencies. This era could be akin to the days of the old world explorers: Polo, Cook, da Gama, Magellan (although they were partially funded by govs). When people would go explore for the sake of the possibilities; and even though many died along the way, they were successful in finding new worlds (although already inhabited) and (eventually) colonizing them. We are completely hung up on maintaining 100% health before we even risk going to Mars or going back to the Moon. Sure, the government needs to worry about this, but if a company and its employees are willing to risk more then we might be able to achieve more. The next thing we know, the Mars or Moon environment might spark some sort of manufacturing or research break through and everybody will be scrambling to set up colonies after the first guy figures it out.

    This could be interesting, but anything can be 20 years out as well. Flying cars? Pfff - 20 years. Fusion? Pfff - 20 years. So beware ...

  82. Red Mars by cyanics · · Score: 1

    Sounds kinda familiar.

    When can we expect the space elevator on mars to be operational? Will we also be colonizing Pheobos and Deomos?

  83. Thoreau by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody has yet pointed out the fact that their site is quoting Thoreau . I'm confused. They make space home(tm)?

  84. Number-in-name law by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a law that says a company with a number in its name is doomed to failure?

  85. where to set up shop by trb · · Score: 1
    companies are moving their facilities away from the usa to places like india and china, because doing business in the usa is relatively expensive.

    people and companies are considering not rebuilding in new orleans, because surviving there might prove too expensive. the water in new orleans might be fetid, but new orleans, even now, is pretty attractive when compared to mars.

    i'm a bit puzzled how anyone is going to justify doing business on mars. the only way i could see it working is if some government is wasting huge amounts of money to go to mars already, and they are willing to waste more for services. (hello halliburton/kbr.)

  86. Disney Mars anyone? by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    One plan is to build a full-scale version of the planned Mars settlement and charge visitors to tour the "Mars Settlement Research and Outreach Center." 4Frontiers hopes to have a site selected for the center by the end of this year, said company co-founder and CEO Mark Homnick.

    "We've narrowed the search to New Mexico, Central Florida or Colorado," he said.


    Pardon my cynicism, but does anyone really see this going past Central Florida?

  87. 42 by chigun · · Score: 1

    I think it would be more likely that someone finally finds Magrathea to commission a planet of solid gold than to mine Mars.

    Slartibartfast will of course handle the fjords.

    --
    swanker than you
  88. Closer than you think by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I'm sure part of the business plan is selling rover parts on eBay.

    Actually, I'll bet that could just about fund the whole mission right there. That and the fee they get for telling the EU what really happened to Beagle.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Closer than you think by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I'm sure part of the business plan is selling rover parts on eBay.

      Interesting. I wonder if, by the time they get there, the rovers will have been dead long enough to be considered abandoned and legally salvageable.

      If so, I'd bet they could make a bit of money selling the parts to future space/history buffs.

      Don't know about 100% return, but enough to help...

  89. A Day Of Breakthroughs by psbrogna · · Score: 1

    Odd that this comes on the tail of hydrogen fuel pellets & laptop supercomputers ... Come on, we know you're out there- go ahead- post the perpetual motion machine plans.

    Is it just me or is /. teetering on the brink of being inconsequential? Anybody want to bet the #1 referrering page at snopes.com is /.?

  90. Hmmmmmmm... by kylo9 · · Score: 1

    Funny to hear about this now. My new company, X Dimension Corp, is planning to colonize Alpha Centauri and mine fairy dust as soon as 2012. We are hiring lesbians and midgets right now, so all is coming along well.

    /wish them all the best - honestly - but I just don't see it happening.

  91. Electric Supernova by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

    This plan is flawless, except they failed to take into account that the electricity from their 1TB laptops will make the sun go supernova.

    --
    For great justice.
  92. M.U.L.E. by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1

    All of you naysayers will be eating your words once the price of crystite goes through the roof.

  93. For What Its Worth.... by rugburn · · Score: 1
    I have had a kind of KEEP MARS CLEAN(boring, but cleverly titled blog), and here(merch for boring, but cleverly titled blog) thing going on for a couple weeks now... Anyone wanna mobilize protests for our sister planet?

    yeah... me neither...

  94. BioSphere 3 er. Colony On Mars, That's The Ticket! by phixson · · Score: 1

    This goomba couldn't keep a handfull of "researchers" alive in a greenhouse for a couple of months. How's he going to mars? He's not. Ever. Period.
    Wannabuyabridge???

  95. I'm rich, bitch by RoyBoy333 · · Score: 1

    I knew getting that patent on the business model of going mars and mining it would pay off someday

  96. Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way to export goods from Mars for a profit. At the very best an established thriving colony might be able to export raw materials for a million dollars a pound, and that is doubtful. There simply isn't anything known worth that much. The possible except would be Helium 3 but the cheaper resource for that would be the Moon. I haven't heard of vast stores on Mars. Even with the Moon it only has value if some one perfects Fusion power. If it's even viable the projections tend to lean on the 50 to a 100 year side. I'd love to see a colony there but it won't be established by a for profit company. Also there is no reason to believe Mars can be terraformed. It's too small and lacks a magnetic field. It's a failed earthlike planet for a reason.

  97. And the miners will pass the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    forlornly waiting to upload Duke Nukem Forever from Earth.

  98. On a serious note by databyss · · Score: 1

    What rights does this guy have in claiming the planet for himself?

    Will he then be the President or King or whatever self-imposed title he wishes of Mars?

    --
    Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    1. Re:On a serious note by lustforlike · · Score: 1

      Whoever gets there first has whatever rights they want. It's an unusual concept these days, since most of this planet is owned by someone, but the flip side must also be considered; what rights does anyone else have to stop these claims?

    2. Re:On a serious note by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      There's two sides to it: He can claim anything he wants, and we can choose whether we recognize those claims.

    3. Re:On a serious note by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

      Um...the UN Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies seems to stop it pretty good.

      From Article 11:

      1. The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement, in particular in paragraph 5 of this article.

      2. The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

      Article 1 declares that while they refer to the moon for the rest of the document, it applies to the rest of the bodies in the solar system, as well.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    4. Re:On a serious note by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

      Um this is a company of the USA, and in case you haven't you heard or live under a rock, the USA only humors the UN and its opinion only counts when it does not rub against the USA own policies. I am from the USA, and have no problem with this company selling stuff that belongs to no man or every man however you look at it, possession is 99.9% of the law you know.

      On a more serious note, they can shore this up as payment for delivering the goods from mars, ie delivery charges on the goods, not the price of the goods themselves if actually ever becomes a problem.

    5. Re:On a serious note by ferat · · Score: 1

      Technically by the wording of that, wouldn't it only prevent, say, the US from sending people to Mars and declaring it the 51st state?

      If I, ferat, lord of all I survey, decide to wander out there and hole up in the giant face of Mars and declare it my personal domain, the agreement doesn't really apply.

      Nor would it apply to anyone that isn't a signee of that treaty for that matter.

    6. Re:On a serious note by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
      I don't see anything in those two items to prevent private ownership though. (OK, I haven't read the whole UN Agreement. Like it really matters here on /. )

      And if a person/coporation did lay claim to Mars (and held it by landing there), when they declared themselves an independant world, they (at that time) wouldn't be signatories to the agreement.

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    7. Re:On a serious note by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      He can claim anything he wants, and we can choose whether we recognize those claims.

      One owns only what he can defend.

    8. Re:On a serious note by rossdee · · Score: 1

      What gives the UN (an Earth organisation) the right to decide ownership over the moon, or 'other celestial bodies? (and the phrase other celestial bodies would seem to include planets around other stars as well as our own. I don't think Klingons (or any other warlike alien races that may be out there) are going to look kindly on us when thay hear that.

    9. Re:On a serious note by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > we can choose whether we recognize those claims.

      Possession is 9/10ths of the law. "In the name of the Earth we declare Mars a haven" sounds good when pontificated by dirt-grubbing politicians to other dirt-grubbing voters, but it's not historically accurate.

      Should some arrogant politician try to stop them? Why? People go to the frontier to get away from the asshole politicians ruling over them. Or to get land that's laying there for the taking and put it to use.

      It's sad enough we've run out of room for immediat expansion. Now some suggest the claw of government extend it's reach to Mars? Zer vill be no escape for you!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:On a serious note by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Mars is the high ground, both with respect to energy needed to lift to orbit, and it's pretty much a free ride all the way down to Earth.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:On a serious note by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1
      UN Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies seems to stop it pretty good.


      It's to stop some nation from claiming the entire moon. It's not to stop bases and permanent civilization from forming, be it government or private organizations.

      1. The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind,


      No disagreement with use by individual governments or private concerns so far.

      Unless you're suggesting some kind of socialist redistribution of wealth nonsense, where someone who mines the moon must give a cut to every human on Earth.

      . The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.


      The moon, not parts of it. And if it means parts of it, that's a complete laugh. Those who can get there and build permanent bases aren't gonna not build them because of this.
      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    12. Re:On a serious note by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, it would stop the first guy to set foot there and planting a flag from claiming the entire planet. Although if they set up a permanent base, they could declare some reasonable immediate area the 51st state, I suppose.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:On a serious note by ACPosterChild · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can do that. Of course, the question would soon become, "You and what army?".

      Somehow, I don't think "squatter's rights" would get you far.

  99. Change their name to PTMC by Chaset · · Score: 1

    I can't wait til they change their name to PTMC and need a "material defender" to clean up certain "messes" in their martian labs.

    --
    -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
  100. let the destruction start by seabasstin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok I know all the sci-fi lovers out there are all super excited about the prospect of a space gold rush.
    but let me ask this.
    Do we really have to destroy another planet to satisfy the energy/consumption needs of HUMANS?

    I say right now someone should draft a universe wide anti exploitation bill.
    All planets and moons should be off limit to commercial interests, to prevent said exploitation, until these planets are well understood.

    I think its despicable that this is even being proposed and I really think any though of commercial exploitation is premature before we even understand the ecology of the planet.

    I mean look at the destruction around you.
    Do you think it was caused by chipmunks?

    Everyday I drive by useless Mc Mansions and new mall developments destroying forests and natural clearings and creating more detritus, consuming more energy per person to keep up than is warranted only to serve the vanity of some insecure, empty and shallow human shells.

    why should other planets be made to pay for the retardation of the human species?

    fools.
    We never learn.

    --
    Content + Container; Content = Container; Content â Container... which is the question?
    1. Re:let the destruction start by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      There is no life on Mars, and rocks don't have feelings.

      And, if manufacturing, mining, and farming could be made affordable on Mars, it could be a substitute for destroying the enviornment on the Earth.

  101. UAC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it called the Union Aerospace Corporation?

  102. Exclamations! by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

    > Something about companies that have numerals in their names just makes them seem so reputable and trustworthy!

    And! as! if! that! weren't! enough!, we! have! jerkoff! companies! that! use! exclamation! sign! in! their! name!
    As that Yahoo! customer from China found out, companies that use ASCII symbols in their name are even less trustworthy than those that use numerals.

  103. They're looking for the wrong thing by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Ok, in all these proposals for mining Mars and the asteroids, they talk about looking for water, carbon, building materials, etc. It seems like the most important thing they should be looking for is uranium (or thorium). Yes, you need water to make fuel and oxygen, but you can't get fuel from water without power. Same with all the other projects. How are you going to run mining equipment, provide power for the habitations, etc?

    Also if you can find extraterrestrial (not from Earth) fissionable material (uranium or thorium) that means you can avoid the risks and expense of having to launch it. A lot of people get upset if there's a proposal to launch a 100kg RTG. Well, to power a mining colony, they will need a lot more than 100kg of fission fuel. What kind of public reaction would there be to the proposal of launching several tons of uranium? It would be much better if they could dig it up on Mars and use it on Mars.

    Some of the terraforming projects require moving asteroids of ice to Mars. Again, the only way you can do that is with a nuclear-powered mass driver on the asteroid, and it would be nice to not have to launch that much uranium from Earth.

    So when my company starts its Mars base, the first thing we're going to do is find the uranium, and then we'll sell electricity, H2 and O2 to all the other companies that want to (effectively) sell dirt and water. I suspect there's a lot better markup on electricity than there is on dirt and water.

    I assume there is uranium on Mars, but I've never heard of anyone looking for it or discussing it. It seems to me that if there are no extraterrestrial sources of uranium, that's going to be a big problem for colonization of space, because it really will take thousands of tons of uranium to provide all the power that's going to be needed for serious mining and fuel production. And no, solar power is not going to work for this. Mining and fuel production requires too much power for solar to be a realistic option. For any activities beyond Mars, solar gets even less realistic. As long as solar is the power source, power is going to be a very tight limiting factor, whereas if you've got a few hundred tons of uranium, power will not be the limiting factor.

    Also I wonder if uranium would make a good radiation shield? It seems like DU would be quite effective for that?

    The good news is that if you set up a reactor on one of Mars' moons or on an asteroid or in Mars orbit, you can make it enormous and not need any real containment structures. If the uranium is available, it might be much cheaper to build extraterrestrial reactors than it is on Earth.

    ----------------
    mobile search

    1. Re:They're looking for the wrong thing by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How are you going to refine the uranium (or other fissionable material) into useable fuel though?

    2. Re:They're looking for the wrong thing by xactuary · · Score: 1
      And no, solar power is not going to work for this. Mining and fuel production requires too much power for solar to be a realistic option.

      What about sending solar harvesters closer to the sun to collect more energy? If that were done, we could then transport that energy to where it is needed, like constructing Ringworld!

      --
      Say hello to my little sig.
  104. Marketing fluff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see no evidence of engineering work on their site. It looks like it's all marketing blurb. They need to get together with a company that can actually build rockets. SpaceDev would be my first guess since they already have plans to get to the moon:

    http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/templates/subpage3 .php?pid=139&subNav=11&subSel=1

    Let 4Frontiers (the business guys) do the marketing, raise the money, be the front and let SpaceDev (the rocket scientists) do the actual work, probably with some help from Scaled (the builders) for the fabrication of crew vehicles.

    (FYI, SpaceDev is the company that built the rockets for SpaceShip One - they also have a space tug under development for NASA).

  105. launching from mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It takes a bunch of fuel to launch from earth and I'll bet it will take a bunch to launch from Mars. Especially with a big load of rocks.

  106. Stupid by misleb · · Score: 1

    How expensive is it going to be to launch all that material into space from the martian surface? Maybe a little cheaper than from Earth, but then you have complex and expensive stations and life support to maintain as well. This is a stupid idea. Mining asteroids or something would be a whole lot better. Not that I see any of this happening by 2025, of course. I think we'll be lucky just to have our first human driving around in a buggy by then. Forget about commercial enterprises.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    1. Re:Stupid by misleb · · Score: 1

      Driving around in a buggy... on mars, that is.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  107. this is good by rayde · · Score: 1
    i like the sounds of this. what's to stop a company (besides, of course, technical hurdles) who is forward thinking enough to travel to mars and stake a massive claim to land, resources, etc? If one company does it, others are sure to follow. Maybe this will light a fire underneath the painfully slow-moving NASA and any other government run space agencies around the world.

    Viva competition! Viva free enterprise!

  108. ^3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but real the question is.

    Will there be any girls with three tits?

  109. fucking capitalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    property is usury

  110. Thanks God there are still dumb investors... by DoctorSVD · · Score: 1

    willing to sink their dollars into crackpot pipe dreams like this. If they can mine and refine enough materials to recoup the energy spent pusing things in and out of orbit they'll be lucky.

  111. Easy Martian exports by AJWM · · Score: 1

    Actually it's pretty easy to export Martian material to just about anywhere, with the construction of a Martian beanstalk. I did a paper on exporting Martian volatiles (organics, water, etc) this way back in 1991.

    As for "otherwise it is boring mineral slag", you're probably right about most of it -- so is most of Earth. But consider that Mars has had large meteor impacts, which can lead to rich deposits of nickel, silver, copper, etc (google sudbury basin). It has also has water and has had extensive volcanism, which implies hydrothermal ore concentration mechanisms (stuff like uranium, among many others).

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Easy Martian exports by lgw · · Score: 1

      If by beanstalk you mean space elevator, there's this minor problem of Mars having a moon in the way. The elevator would have to dodge. Of course, since we're just making this shit up, we might as well specify that the moon will become the anchor for the space elevator, neatly solving 2 problems!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Easy Martian exports by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      If by beanstalk you mean space elevator, there's this minor problem of Mars having a moon in the way. The elevator would have to dodge.
      Thanks for the laugh. You just made my day.

      Wait, you were joking, right?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    3. Re:Easy Martian exports by lgw · · Score: 1

      Phobos orbits *very* close to Mars at 9378 km (about 6000 km above the surface), well inside the ~14500 km areostationary orbit (about 11000 km above the surface) where you'd put a Mars elevator station (the elevator ribbon itself would be longer, of course, with the counterweight). Oddly enough for what appears to be a captured asteriod, Phobos orbits almost exactly in the plane of Mars's equator (as does Deimos, equally odd), so it would be a menace.

      Of course, attempting to dodge the moon would be a bit of a joke, but I think the whole prospect is prety silly to begin with.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Easy Martian exports by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      Well that's really interesting. I stand corrected. My appologies.

      The sad part is that I knew all these things already. I guess I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to be a smartass.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  112. blah by metallikop · · Score: 1

    I see they're not settling for the best. Under Jobs:

    Desired Skill Sets - For Future Positions
    Nuclear - power generation, propulsion blah

  113. what solar system economy? by BRUTICUS · · Score: 1

    "The idea is to make Mars a center for needs of the solar system economy"

    What solar system economy? Hello buddy we only have one planet with potential buyers.

    Im guessing what he means is to mine the goods from mars and sell it to people like NASA willing to build a space station orbiting mars.

    It does sound pretty hoakey the way he presents the proposition though.

  114. This is going to happen and here's why. by crovira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you'll cast your minds back, about 65 million years ago, the Chicxulub crater, (that's the one that was left from the impact that wiped out all the dinosaurs,) was a mere 145 to 180 km in diameter (70 to 80 miles for the metrically challenged.)

    Imagine that you want to be the BIG ASS BOSS of everybody and everything, no lip from anybody, period. And they can even make lots of bucks doing it.

    You know what damage a 145 to 180 km kinetic weapon can cause. Extinction! Bad for business. Now think small. Real small.

    What would a missile a few kilos of mass do if it was nudged from orbit, dropped down and hit the ground at terminal velocity. Were talking about a geosynchronously guided killer dead weight here.

    And it requires very little energy to launch 'em, toss 'em and park 'em in LEO, from Mars, where there's lots of dirt waiting to be wrapped in plastic with a couple of little guidance rockets to give 'em a li'l shove.

    The first one who gets off this dirt ball doesn't have to go far to get some REAL leverage. It doesn't even have to be thay complicated, or expensive, or long term or difficult.

    If I can think this way, so can anybody else. (I bet Balls-mer would just love to have something like this right now. It would make it so much easier to dict..., uh, negotiate with the EU.)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:This is going to happen and here's why. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      That would be a lot easier to do from the Moon.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    2. Re:This is going to happen and here's why. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You should read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein. I think you'd like it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:This is going to happen and here's why. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Ingenious. Hopefully Iran and North Korea don't read this and start colonizing Mars instead of building nukes and ICBMs.

      You're seriously overestimating the amount of kinetic energy "a few kilos of mass" would have dropping down from orbit at terminal velocity. Given Earth escape velocity of 11200 m/sec, the kinetic energy of 1 kg is 63 MJ (Mega Joules). Same energy as about 1.5 kg of TNT. Whoopy friggin' doo. A 12 year old Palestinian suicide bomber packs more punch.

      Now, when you can change the orbit of an asteroid the size of Texas, then you're dangerous. Feel free to figure out how much energy/time this would take (hint: bigass nuclear power plant, decades). For extra points, figure out out to apply thrust to a tumbling asteroid. But seriously, dude, if you want to be a BIG ASS BOSS, it'd be cheaper to make a nuke, and a *lot* cheaper to make chemical weapons.

    4. Re:This is going to happen and here's why. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Whoops, sorry, that's 1.5 kg of propane, not TNT. My bad.

    5. Re:This is going to happen and here's why. by lgw · · Score: 1

      A "kiloton of TNT" is defined as exactly 10^12 calories these days, so 1 kg of TNT is 4.184 MJ, and 15 kg of TNT is 63 MJ, which doesn't chage your point at all. A 100 kg rock would blow the Hell out a building, however, and the military has certainly evaluated this as a bunker-busting solution.

      A collection of 1-ton rocks in orbit would certainly be enough to extort <Dr_Evil>One Million Dollars</Dr_Evil> from every major nation!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:This is going to happen and here's why. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      The big deal about TNT (and nukes) is that they release their energy instantaneously as a shock wave. As noted above, the amount of energy per pound of TNT is a tenth that of an equal amount of propane. I guess it boils down to how the energy of a 100 kg rock hitting hard would be dissipated. How much would be shock wave and how much would be absorbed by the ground? It would probably be good for busting bunkers.

  115. Bottom Line by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For Mars to become worth colonizing, it has to have something that is worth more than it costs to ship it back to Earth. At the moment, I simply can't think of anything that would qualify due to the high costs of getting it out of the gravity well and to Earth, Only when a material runs out on Earth and easily farmed asteroids will Mars become a profitable source, and the only thing I can think of that we're near running short on would be oil, and Mars isn't exactly Saudi Arabia, if you get my drift.

    We'd be better off skipping Mars and heading to the asteroids for metals, comets for water, and the gas giants for methane/hydrogen/whatever. Personally, I think Mars may only become useful to inhabit if it was used as the anchor for support space stations for deep space mining elsewhere. Then it may be worth building an elevator to the surface and transporting up more common materials you'd otherwise get from Earth or asteroids.

    Nevertheless, there is a decent chance that once there are regular commercial interests in deep space, Mars may be colonized for other reasons than resources. It may make a fine home for some group that wants to get well away from the rest of the Earth's population and can use existing commercial technologies to get them there cheaply. I'm thinking of survivalist groups, certain religious ideologies or simply highly independent people who want to go somewhere where they can live without interference from others. Say what you like about these groups, but they often take the hits in opening up wastelands and other undesirable places for eventual mainstream settlement.

  116. I've said it before, and I'll say it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's going to be a civil war in the US, starting by the end of this year, and in 2015, Russia is going to launch a nuclear attack on all major US cities.

    This will pretty much screw up any attempt to develop the capacity to go to Mars.

    J. Titor

  117. Jobs Available... by podperson · · Score: 1

    They will need people with the following skillset:

    "Nuclear - power generation, propulsion blah"

  118. yes by Bobbie · · Score: 1

    Where are doomed ! hell on earth !

    --
    -- il fait bo
  119. Pretty Trivial, actually by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We already have the bulk of the research necessary. What is needed NOW, is simply to have the gumption to go.

    This is no different than when Kennedy sent Man to the moon. Since then, we have not had leaders that are visionary or have real courage (papa bush did, but he was battling a monster deficit).

    These guy have the right idea. To make a coloney, you have to have some reason to make it worthwhile. It will almost certainly be a mining type operation.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  120. Space Nazis! by Pwnzerfaust · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thought of Doom 3 immediately? Haha....but seriously, what if there is life on mars, that we don't know about... Or maybe Nazis launched a shuttle there in 1944 and we dont know about it, and now they have an underground empire! That would make for a kickass video game.

    1. Re:Space Nazis! by xmorg · · Score: 1

      I thought of doom3 :)

  121. Imagine Heinlein's Ghost Sneering... by abb3w · · Score: 1
    The first person to land on Mars, and to live there some specified minimum duration (such as a year), and to return alive owns the entire Red Planet.

    The proposal, while less ludicrous than some things I've heard, implies insufficient attention given when reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

    "The government is in a stew about that nominal colony we left behind. Every man in it joined in signing away his so-called Larkin rights-assigned them to the government-before we left Earth."
    It seems a likely enough scenario. (A previous expidition's sole survivor, befreinded by natives, showing up to cramp the plan seems rather less likely.) In addition, the US isn't in a position to make such a proclamation to the other governments of the world... and such would mean nothing while military might is still used to settle territorial disputes between sovereign powers. Any claimant who cannot back it up with weapons as needed renders their claim moot. In turn, if there's no-one powerful enough to take it away from you, any argument it doesn't belong to you becomes very moot.

    Call it poetic, or call it ironic, but call it by the proper name: Any claim to own Mars, which the Romans named for their God of War, would ultimately have to rest on a formidable foundation of the Right Of Conquest.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  122. I have to differ on you with this one. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We have the bulk of the science needed to go there. What we have been trying to come up with, is how to stay there for a short time, and then how to come back. That is very difficult. If we go on a one-way mission, then we could devote research to staying there and how to mine better. Much of that research will involve automation. That can be applied back here on earth.

    As to how to get there, the rockets are coming. I think that sending a small crew there, is fairly easy, if doing a 4 month one-way trip. Staying there will require a small nuke. No 2 ways about it. Most likely, they will send it there early on (before man mission) to provide power to robots. It will construct a small shelter in the ground, as well as a green house on the surface (all automated). Once these are going, then send man. We have most of the technology for these. Just have to do it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:I have to differ on you with this one. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me, just expanding. What I said was not that we didn't have the technology to go there (we've got lotsa' technology) but rather that no infrastructure exists to produce the technology.

      For example, if you want to purchase a NERVA engine, who can you get one from? The closest thing is the TRITON engine from Pratt & Whitney, but they'd need a minimum order before they build you even one.

      Who can I get airtight, inflatible habitats from? Especially habitats that can survive in low pressure, high stress situations? The closest thing there is Bigelow's work, which is also not compeleted.

      Where do you get the Space Suits from? Do you purchase them from NASA?

      Where do you get the interplanetary rocketry from? All the current rockets are for lifting into LEO and/or sending small probes on an interplanetary cruise.

      Where does one purchase an automated, portable nuclear powerplant that can withstand extreme conditions?

      All of the technology has been researched, but no infrastructure exists to produce it. And if 4Frontiers can't rely on other companies for the components they need, then they'll have to build them themselves. Are they prepared to do work into propulsion, nuclear reactors, inflatible modules, mass electrolysis equipment, portable mining equipment, new building materials/techniques, etc., etc., etc.?

      Until I see signs that they are ready to take on this challenge, I'm afraid that they'll be nothing more than one more pipedream company that promised big and failed to deliver.

  123. Landmine? by pilybaby · · Score: 1

    Why the hell would somebody want to go all the way to Mars and plant landmines everywhere? I mean really! It's not as if it's going to protect it from alien invaders, and it will be nothing but problematic for the early settlers.

  124. Hey, wait a minute!!! by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    What about the flying cars?

  125. www.3m.com by srobert · · Score: 1

    Apparently not.

  126. I for one welcome our new Ur-Quan Masters by MrMadnutz · · Score: 1

    Fond memories... (no, not the 3DO version.)

  127. Profit! by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    1. Form new company 2. Get to Mars and dig up stuff 3. Ship it back to Moon 4. ??? 5. Profit!!!

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    1. Re:Profit! by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      Darn formatting, please ignore this one, see below.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  128. This is some kind of gag. by windowpain · · Score: 1

    "Carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen are all scarce on the moon, but readily available on Mars."

    But they're also plentiful on Earth. D'oh!

    How can these people be serious?

    --
    Insert witty sig here.
  129. Remote space stations not practical by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    More like the first person to take control and hold onto the high orbitals of Mars is going to be the King. Hypersonic aimed rock beats gun any day of the week.

    Really? How you going to man that? If it's unmanned, how are you going to stop the people on the surface from jamming signals to the weapons satellites?

    Being able to throw things at people on the ground is a far cry from control. Just as you cannot win a war with only air support you cannot hold a planet from a space station.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  130. Mining on mars by neovoxx · · Score: 0

    This is how it starts, later we will build a military base there, start performing teleportation experiments, open a gate to hell, and unleash hell on earth^H^H^H^H^H mars.

    --
    0x68ADA2CC
  131. Wrong planet by drix · · Score: 1

    I think they would be better off mining Jupiter. You know, a planet composed of vapor.

    Seriously, this would be awesome. I sure hope to see a Mars colony in my lifetime, which will end around 2070 or presidential election of Jeb Bush, whichever comes first.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  132. Funding by Ranger · · Score: 1

    They are going to sell prime Louisiana real estate to fund their venture. Most of it's in and around New Orleans.

    Oh, yeah, and according them, Biosphere 2 was a great success just like FEMA's efforts for Hurricane Katrina relief. I still want to know what happened to Biosphere 1. mygodwhatabunchoffucktards

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Funding by bhima · · Score: 1

      You live on Biosphere 1, it's called "Earth".

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Funding by Ranger · · Score: 1

      You live on Biosphere 1, it's called "Earth".

      Yeah, I know. I still want to know what happened to it.

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    3. Re:Funding by bhima · · Score: 1

      It's a great place to visit, except for the people that live there

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  133. EARTH FIRST! by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    We'll mine other planets later.

  134. why don't they save the trip? by cahiha · · Score: 1

    The could just save themselves a lot of trouble and instead go to Antartica or some rocky desolate island on earth and start the solar system economy from there.

    In different words, so far, there is little evidence that there are economically exploitable, useful resources on Mars.

  135. Give these people air!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd better watch out for Cohaagen, he is ruthless competition.

  136. mineral rights? by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    just how exactly does this company supposedly get the deed to mars itself so that they can dole out these mineral rights as they see fit?

    sum.zero

  137. Optimistic numbers by benhocking · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not challenging your numbers - do enough polls and you'll get almost any result - but I wonder if you can tell me the poll you saw. The numbers I saw doing a google search are 55% (Nov. 2004), 47% (Nov. 1991), and 42% (Aug. 2005) of Americans believing in Creationism.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Optimistic numbers by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I was using the most conservative number I had seen, giving fellow Americans the favor of attributing less ignorance than some statistics would indicate.

      To start with, I have a problem with "believing" anything. There's no place for "believing". You can't just say I "believe" this drug will cure AIDS. It either does or doesn't. You either have evidence and practical material showing that it truly does or you do not. Likewise, you can't just say "I believe the world was created by a giant ice cream monster" and have that fall into the category of "scientific theory".

      However, if one must believe in the baby jesus and all that stuff, why is it so unreasonable to believe "there was some intelligent being that created the universe... and the method he used to initiate it could have been the big bang and evolution" and so on? Is that not also creationism?

      Also, a lot of Americans believe in space aliens, but that doesn't mean a thing. Believing in creationism or space aliens is like believing in reincarnation or karma. It may help the individual cope with the unfathomable unknown, but it doesn't belong in science. And it most certainly does not belong hindering scientific discovery and exploration.

    2. Re:Optimistic numbers by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      However, if one must believe in the baby jesus and all that stuff, why is it so unreasonable to believe "there was some intelligent being that created the universe... and the method he used to initiate it could have been the big bang and evolution" and so on? Is that not also creationism?

      Right, but the problem with this line of thinking is that it's rational and not dogmatic. It doesn't deny the existence of a supreme being, and puts forth a hypothesis which attempts to reconcile the existence of a deity with current scientific theories.

      This goes against religion, because it disagrees with what is written in a certain holy book. Religion isn't about being rational and using your brain (which god gave you), but about being irrational and dogmatic, and refusing to accept any new evidence which contradicts what your particular religious sect tells you.

  138. This raises the bar for business planning... by Hugonz · · Score: 1

    1. ??????
    2. PROFIT????

  139. I think this company is on to something by GWBasic · · Score: 1

    I read this company's plan and it's completly feasable, except that they transposed a digit in their projected year of completion. They really plan to be on Mars in 2205, not 2025. ;)

  140. un treaties by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    there are existing un treaties about exactly what you can do with/to/on a celestial body like mars and who can claim ownership. the us is a signatory to these treaties.

    also, a private enterprise needs explicit authorization and supervision by an appropriate state party for any activities they intend.

    sum.zero

  141. It's a shame.... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

    Too bad any hope of increased capital will be lost paying for the Slashdot traffic.

  142. pwahahahahha!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's a riot!!! hahahahahaha...

    i predict they last...hmmmmmmm...6 months...?

  143. Earth First! by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    We'll strip mine Mars later.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  144. Yeah right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen are all scarce on the moon, but readily available on Mars

    Uh... yeah. And on the earth too!
    It would have to be something of really really high value and impossible to find or create on Earth for this to be worth it.

    4Frontiers' settlement plan faces some challenges, however, namely the harsh Martian environment, with its nasty chemicals and radiation

    And you also have to go there in the first place!
    That, after the quantum laptop made of old spare parts, super glue and fake screenshots... isn't there a "Joke" category for those articles?

  145. Profit! by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    1. Form new company
    2. Get to Mars and dig up stuff
    3. Ship it back to Moon
    4. ???
    5. Profit!!!

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  146. Can't be real... by GrayFox777 · · Score: 1

    As awesome as it sounds, it just can't be real. I'll believe it when/if it actually happens. I don't see it really happening for another 50 years or so.

  147. It's a lot easier on Mars than on Earth by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 3, Informative
    Ok, some of the basic steps are the same. Uranium is going to be about 0.7% U235 on Mars, just like it is on Earth, because all the uranium in the solar system was probably formed at the same time, so it has all decayed at the same rate. So you start with the same basic problem: you need to sort out the U235 from the U238. Not easy to do.

    But on Mars it's a lot easier than on Earth. First, safety is not as much of a concern. If you have a big radioactive spill on Earth, you've caused a lot of problems. On Mars, well, no one is drinking the groundwater anyway and the whole place is already uninhabited. So that greatly simplifies your factory.

    Second, you don't need to run on 100% uranium fuel. Here on Earth, no one wants to generate plutonium for reactors because of proliferation fears (founded or not). On Mars, proliferation is not a concern. Anyone who has the technology to get to Mars should be able to build atomic weapons fairly easily, and atomic explosives will probably be needed for engineering work, so spending time worrying about proliferation on Mars is silly.

    The good thing about being free to burn plutonium is that it's easy to make plutonium from the left-over depleted uranium. All you need is a big neutron flux, pump that through the depleted uranium, and you get plutonium fuel.

    What this means is that on Earth, you need to mine 140 tons of uranium metal to get one ton of U235, which is the only kind that works as fuel. On Mars, you mine 140 tons of uranium metal, extract the 1 ton of U235, and use that to convert the remaining 139 tons of U238 to plutonium. We can't do that on Earth for political / military reasons, but we can do it on Mars.

    So yeah, many of the same problems remain, but the whole process of going from uranium ore to energy would be a lot simpler on Mars.

    Once you have a basic reactor going (enough to generate fuel) you can start lifting your raw uranium ore into Mars orbit. It's a lot easier to get off the surface of Mars than it is to get off of Earth. Then you refine it in orbit, where you can be as unsafe and messy as you want, you blast all the waste products into the sun, and you send back down your refined U235 or plutonium fuel rods.

    1. Re:It's a lot easier on Mars than on Earth by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1
      But on Mars it's a lot easier than on Earth. First, safety is not as much of a concern. If you have a big radioactive spill on Earth, you've caused a lot of problems. On Mars, well, no one is drinking the groundwater anyway and the whole place is already uninhabited. So that greatly simplifies your factory.

      Excellent, we trade the current uninhabitable environment on Mars for a radioactive polluted uninhabitable environment.

      If we ever get off this planet, how about we start over the right way and try not to pollute everything we touch?

    2. Re:It's a lot easier on Mars than on Earth by Teancum · · Score: 1
      If we ever get off this planet, how about we start over the right way and try not to pollute everything we touch?


      Mass genocide of the human species. That is everybody, including yourself, your relatives, and mine as well.

      Seriously.

      Life pollutes everything it touches in all forms, and advanced life that consums resources pollutes even faster. Humans are not BTW the only creature that substantially modifies their environment for their own purposes, but certainly are proficient at doing so. Going into space isn't going to be any different.

      Long live the Luna City chapter of the Sierra Club: Preservation of the Moon to restoring lunar ecology to pre-Armstrong days!
  148. Me too ! by Bugmaster · · Score: 1
    I also have a plan to colonize Mars, by 2007, personally. It's all pretty technical, and a trade secret to boot, but I can tell you that it involves quantum teleportation, the unified field theory, and a platoon of mecha-monkeys. Oh, and I'm hiring, too !

    Seriously... Does this company have any evidence at all that their grandiose designs are plausible in any way ? Mars is a long way from here...

    --
    >|<*:=
  149. Reasonably sure... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...this will be contested. Most of the landlocked nations of the Earth, especially the most dictatorial and despotic and mismanaged, salivated of the Law of the Sea Treaty. It pretty much gave the UN control over everything and would have amounted, given the way the UN does everything, to a massive wealth transfer from nations using sea resources to those not.

    I can hardly believe the same UN which knew very damn well that Iraq had VX in hand at one point but was willing to kiss Hussein's rear end for sweet deals and play up that the US was ultimately like Nazi Germany to Iraq's Poland would do any less. An entire frigging planet for the most corrupt international body in history is too much to resist.

    I also doubt any single government of Earth would sit still for what amounts to any private government being created on Mars which this would essentially entail.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  150. What are they mining? by TripleE78 · · Score: 1

    What are they mining up there? I hear there's some great Turbinium deposits. Of course, they'll have to solve the problem of getting enough air into the housing structures. The first couple go-arounds will likely produce mutations, and we all know how much mutants like to rebel. . . Ah why bother. We all know the current Governor of California will send the entire infrastructure down when he sets off a chain reaction and gives the planet an atmosphere. Seriously, though, what is so valuable that anyone would legitimately invest in this? ~EEE~

  151. In space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In space no one can hear your web server scream....

  152. Let me guess... by thewils · · Score: 1

    4Frontiers is really the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC).

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  153. What are they mining? by TripleE78 · · Score: 1

    (Forgot to check formatting on my last post. Arrgh).

    What are they mining up there?

    I hear there's some great Turbinium deposits. Of course, they'll have to solve the problem of getting enough air into the housing structures. The first couple go-arounds will likely produce mutations, and we all know how much mutants like to rebel. . .

    Ah why bother? We all know the current Governor of California will send the entire infrastructure down when he sets off a chain reaction and gives the planet an atmosphere.

    Seriously, though, what is so valuable that anyone would legitimately invest in this?

    ~EEE~

  154. Tabloid by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

    Anybody ever get the feeling that Wired is a tabloid?

  155. Colonize Mars? by Landshark17 · · Score: 1

    Can you say "Union Aerospace Corporation"?

    --
    This sig is false.
  156. This story is just a denial of service attack by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The idea is so preposterous that it is unimaginable (just like the laptop story earlier today). All the posts explaining *precisely* why the idea is idiotic probably took something like a few thousand man hours to write/read.

    What a waste of space. Nobody is going to make money going to Mars in the next 20 years. Bank on it. Nobody is going to Mars in the next 20 years. Bank on it.

    The only money to be made on this boondoggle is by fleecing money from dreamers.

    Space exploration with meat in the exploration vehicles is a total waste of time and money. Send a robot. The current Mars successes are wonderful reasons why we shouldn't send meat to Mars.

    By 2025, we'll all be so jacked into our VR worlds banging Jenna Haze that we won't give a shit if we go to Mars anyway.

    As a reference, I cite Kurzweil's Age of Spiritual Machines, which I refer to by shorthand as "the porn fantasy book." We're all going to be circuits and software someday anyway, so the idea of saving humanity by exploring space is ridiculous anyway. We'll be able to send ourselves anywhere in the universe without the meat, given enough time, starting in about a hundred years, if we haven't solved Fermi's Paradox ourselves the hard way.

    1. Re:This story is just a denial of service attack by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If this were a company with a proven record in more "down to earth" space ventures, a participant with the X-Prize (and actual vehicles... not cool "artist renderings and grandiose ideas), had legitimate plans for space tourism or even lunar transfer vehicles for unmanned cargo, I might actually believe that they could do this for real.

      As it is, I have to agree with you. Just the /. article headlines alone made me think "boy, what a wonderful way to fleece a bunch of gullible investors and other idiots."

      I disagree with many of the posters, including you guacamolefoo, that there will never be people on Mars. I think that there will be human colonization there, and people going still further into the outer and inner Solar System. On the other hand, human progress is made usually in incremental changes and only on a very rare circumstance do huge changes every happen. And that is usually a change in thinking rather than a change in actual technological means. We need to have a large and healthy commercial presence in LEO well before anything happens on the Moon or Mars, which certainly hasn't happened yet. On the other hand, Richard Branson and a bunch of other crazy fools are trying to make that happen, so it doesn't seem like so much pie in the sky anymore. We will be lucky to see government sponsored manned travel to Mars in the next 30-50 years. I think that is indeed possible, and technically we are capable of doing that now but for the willpower and political mandate. A private company can't possibly compare against the resources of major nations that are trying as well, and failing.

  157. There goes the neighborhood! by meme_vector · · Score: 1
    Jeez, We just bought a house with a great view of the red spot.

    You're telling me we will soon have to live next to humans?

    That's the final straw. First Venutians, now earthlings. I'm selling before "green flight" to the outer planets ruins my property value. -Xabloz The Transmuter

  158. Mining Mars == Elerium == Hovercars by Jesus_666 · · Score: 0

    I mean, heck - mining ore for return to Earth is itself hugely problematic. It's questionable whether even platinum would be valuable enough to justify the return trip - and whatever you mine would have to be mostly processed on Mars so you're not shipping back waste mass. A triangle trade with asteroid belt mines might make sense (in the very long term), but direct martian mining-and-return essentially requires very major launch cost reductions (in addition to a staggering amount of in-situ Mars-Tech).

    Come on, have you never heard of the First Alien War? Mars mining is important because of the huge elerium stash underneath Cydonia. If we don't get access to the Martian elerium X-Com is going to keep anti-grav technology to themselves and we're stuck shooting our stuff into space using rockets.

    I say that it's about damn time someone thought of commercially exploiting the Cydonia elerium deposits - especially since we're only 35 years from the Second Alien War and those Gauss guns aren't going to invent themselves.

    BTW, I'm going buy as much Marsec stock as possible once the company IPOs. Those guys have the potential to become a big player, y'know.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  159. Minor problem, UPS charges are a bitch by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you get to Mars, somehow, and start digging up "valuable" minerals for the space stations. Only one glitch-- how do you deliver the goods? You think UPS Air is expensive, try UPS Vacuum. At least $10K a pound, and what if they're not home?.

  160. Perspective by Bahumat · · Score: 1

    The bigger concern is NOT contaminating Mars, it is contaminating Earth.

    I can live with accidentally wiping out all less-developed life on a neighbouring planet accidentally.

    I cannot live (literally) with something accidentally wiping out all life on my home planet!

    --
    "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
  161. Sure it will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You only need to gain the cooperation of one government with veto power on the UN security council and a good defense capability. If, say, the Russian or Chinese government view your Mars program to be in their interest, what is anyone else going to do about it?

  162. Quaid... by kaptron · · Score: 1

    start the reactor, free Mars. Only then can the miners prosper here.

  163. Didn't this company used to be called by okvol · · Score: 2, Funny

    the Virginia company? I bet the only way they will turn a profit is by Martian slave labor.

    --
    cabg x3 is a life changing event...
  164. Mars bars? by FragHARD · · Score: 1

    So does anyone know if Hersheys will be making mars bars on mars?

    --
    FragHARD or don't frag at all
    1. Re:Mars bars? by planetoid · · Score: 1

      Was that a poo reference?

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  165. But are they ... by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

    going to build a bridge between the two peaks?

  166. Is dirt really that valuable? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Honestly, if you want to spend a billion dollars bring a half ton of dirt back from mars. You can take it out of my back yard for only a million dollars!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  167. This is not possible at this time by seabreezemm · · Score: 1

    Considering the fact that mars has storms that are 1000x worse than the earth's most horrible hurricane there will have to be some major advancement before this will come to occur.

    --
    Karma: a simple way of silencing those with unpopular views regardless how correct or just that view might be.
  168. Artemis project? by glasse · · Score: 1

    Has nobody heard of the Artemis Project? It's not doing so well these days, but: http://www.asi.org/

    Ethan

  169. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if, say just hypothetically this company or someone invented a device that would get ships into Orbit cheaply? What if you could build this device in your garage? Then would it be cheap enough? Yes, I do know about the Radiation problems with interstellar and even inter planetary travel. I saw on slashdot a while back (or some news site) that a NASA engineer had developed a safe and effective plastic (the stuff in garbage bags) that could withstand the radiatio of deep space much more effectively than any other material out there. It just needs refinement to make it last in space and be strong enough to not flop around, like, a garbage bag.

  170. On their jobs page...: blah! by Lorphos · · Score: 1
    Desired Skill Sets - For Future Positions
    Engineering
    • Nuclear - power generation, propulsion blah
    Lol!
  171. Marsenegger by autophile · · Score: 1
    A leaked memo shows that Gov. Schwartzenegger met with company officials to give them money and tell them to "get ya ass to Mahs".

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  172. UAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone remind this company to change their name to Union Aerospace Corporation. Also, make sure they don't forget the shotgun, chaingun, rocket launcher, plasma rifle, and BFG 9000. Oh, and the chainsaw, never know when you might need a chainsaw!

    1. Re:UAC by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, someone will fuckup and send a shipment of Beavertooth chainsaws to Mars.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  173. Remember that Star Trek Scene by VonSkippy · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember that Star Trek episode, where in the closing scene Data (with help from Q) breaks out laughing, pauses, then laughs again? After reading about this scam, that's exactly how I sounded. Anyone have a sound clip of that scene?

  174. another way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget the shuttle, use a heavy launch rocket to launch a payload that wraps the gold in ablative material (one that absorbs heat, flakes off and vaporizes like the old apollo days), attaches to the blob of gold, slows down the orbital velocity. Then you can go pick it up when it lands (after it cools off and you subdue all the people that rush in to claim it, of course)...

    I haven't done the calculations, but I'm guessing that using shuttle economics is certainly an upper bound on launching this payload. I'm sure a few tons would be vaporized along the way, but of course since it's free, that's just the cost of doing business...

    I don't see any free gold up there right now, but when I do, I might just start a company and have the last laugh ;^)

  175. SPOILER ALERT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude. Next time use a spoiler alert, please.

  176. WIPO? by Joao · · Score: 1

    Since I work at the UN, I did a search at our library for any record of WIPO giving any kind of award to Shimon Gendlin. No records.

    Maybe I'll contact WIPO directly since they won't be too happy about a scam artist infriging on their IP.

  177. So essentially... by sammyo · · Score: 1

    ... the first person on Mars owns both Mars and Earth ;-)

  178. screw that by Cyno · · Score: 1

    If they want some attention they should threaten to go to Mars and start a new colony / country. If they threaten to start a communist/socialist/anarchist utopia every capitalist nation on the planet would work to preventing them the opportunity.

    The only thing that scares capitalists more than the color Red is the concept of a society without money.

    Besides, controversy sells.

  179. Why 4Frontiers? by Dingo_aus · · Score: 1

    4Frontiers ...... interesting but wouldn't Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC) have been catchier?

  180. They have Two Customers In Mind... by lorelorn · · Score: 1
    fools and their money.

    Am I the only one who has noticed that their 'business plan' does not involved going to Mars at all, but rather pretending they have authority to sell mining leases for Mars and various asteroids.

    They intend to sell these non-existent leases to any who wants to pretend along with them.

    I'm sure it will come as a nice glossy certificate that you can frame!

    I expect to see their advertorial right after the one about the amazing memory tapes.

  181. The 2005 version of. . . by jafac · · Score: 1

    . . . I have an opportunity for you to invest in some land in south-central Florida. . .

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:The 2005 version of. . . by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      . . . I have an opportunity for you to invest in some land in south-central Florida. . .

      I went to south-central florida in 1972. Cape Canaveral, and not much else, swamps, orange groves, tomato farms. Went back in 2003 - Disneyworld.
      I didn't have disposable investment income in 72 or 2003, but I'm guessing the rate of return has been pretty good for those who guessed right. There was a guy named AI DuPont who started buying up florida land around 1920; I'm guessing he did ok.

      Sturgeon's law of IPO's applies - 90% of the mars-for-profit companies around now will likely go under, but the ones that make it will make it big. Halliburton could go to Mars to build service facilities for asteroid miners. They aren't shy about looting public treasuries to pay for it until private sector revenues kick in.
      In California circa 1850, some people got rich finding gold, or trading gold stocks, but the guys who sold them shovels and eggs made the real money.
      What we've seen about this company (4frontiers?) is the marketing brochure, not the prospectus.
      There's some discussion of the timing and practicality of their proposals. I'm guessing the "20 years from now" figure came from marketing, not engineering. From a marketing point of view, 20 years is the right time frame. It means I can start saving up for a retirement condo on Mars 30 years from now - when I'll need the low gravity, and enjoy the frontier culture.
      Twenty years is handwaving, which is OK.
      Another way of expressing it is, this project will be technically and economicly doable shortly after the singularity (or some critical mass of pre-singularity effects.) Some people see 20 years as a decent time frame for that, others put it at 50 or 100 years off.
      You don't try to go colonize Mars with today's technology, for the same reasons you don't point your ship to where Mars is now, but where it will be when you get there.
      There is some technology to work the kinks out of before major Mars development. That technology will be very important, and potentially profitable, on a place called earth. There's no reason it can't be worked up for a profit.
      Is this the company that will do that? Probably not, but by studying the wreck if it crashes and burns we can learn a few things. Or it may "mature" and become just another technology company with dim memories of how it once had big plans.
      I expect to see as much technology driven change in the next 20 years as in the previous 100. I could be wrong, or dead. But if you look at what Earl Halliburton did with technology between 1905 and 2005, a breakeven mars project in 20 years doesn't look inconceivable to me.

    2. Re:The 2005 version of. . . by jafac · · Score: 1

      Cape Canaveral is in Northeast Florida.

      South Central Florida is also known as Okeefenokee.

      This is like Christopher Columbus coming to queen Isabella asking for money to finance a voyage to the new world. Only shipbuilding has not yet advanced to the dugout canoe stage.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  182. Advertisement by wwood_98 · · Score: 1

    From TFA:
    One plan is to build a full-scale version of the planned Mars settlement and charge visitors to tour the "Mars Settlement Research and Outreach Center." 4Frontiers hopes to have a site selected for the center by the end of this year, said company co-founder and CEO Mark Homnick.


    This is one big BS hype storm for their cheesy theme park.

  183. I smell gnomes. by Billy+el+Bastardo · · Score: 1

    Plan of Action: 1)go to mars 2)??? 3)Profit!

  184. Settling by kponto · · Score: 1
    Company to Settle and Mine Mars

    I read this as a company is settling to mine Mars, as if they originally had planned to mine Saturn, but they had to shoot a little lower due to budget constraints or something.

    --
    This too, will end.
  185. Mining Mars? Why not asteroids instead! by Tekoneiric · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it take alot less to mine asteroids if the intention is to send the materials back to earth? They have to lift the resources out of the planet's gravity well, with asteroids this isn't a problem. Not that this organization is capable of it but I think it would be best to leave Martian resources on Mars for future colonies. Someone should send their CEO copies of Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars along with A Case for Mars and Mining the Sky.

    If they want to mind a planet, they should go for Mercury. There should be loads of metals there.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  186. REAL LIFE DOOM!!! by shakaru · · Score: 1

    Come on. Anyone whos played Doom3 knows exactly what I am saying here.

  187. Mars Rebels by Antarius · · Score: 1

    OMFG! Don't these guys watch any movies?

    It's the Mars Colony that's always responsible for some kind of rebellion, upgrising, revolution or war! It always ends in riots, bloodshed and decades of racism and bigotry; not to mention annoying circumstances of people having to beg for a 'backdoor' transmission to try and locate lost loves and other causes for flashback sequences.

    Let's not even mention the poor basketball- playing, black-headed martians with their ACME lasers and funky green bird-like minions. Where's Duck Dodgers when you need him?

  188. Too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cancer was cured decades ago, you insensitive clod!

    Google Otto Warburg, Nobel Prize winner for his work on cellular respiration, for details.

  189. Excellent news !!!! by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    I am 100% AGAINST government subsidization of manned space exploration. It's a colossal waste of money.

    But if private companies want to exploit a dead ball of rock, I say they should go for it.

    This would follow the method in which the New World was colonized. The big difference is that there was a breathable atmosphere and easily harvested resources in the new world.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  190. We will fight the martians "OVER THERE" ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... so we don't have to fight them here. ;-)

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  191. More Likely ... by willtsmith · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    More likely it's a "privatization" effort that Bush chronies will poor 3/4 of NASA's budget into without expecting any results.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  192. Robots ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1


    They will ship robots to Mars. And than they will BUILD the robots on mars. And then the robots will buy things from each other making them self-sufficient.

    And then Battlestar Galactica will show up ;-)

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  193. I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... oops, the GOP already bought it. Sorry ;-(

    Though, I might have a seaport in Wyoming to sell soon.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
    1. Re:I have a bridge to sell you in Alaska ... by geomon · · Score: 1

      ... oops, the GOP already bought it. Sorry ;-(

      Kind of sad when you think about it. These people used to proclaim that they were the responsible stewards of the people's money.

      Though, I might have a seaport in Wyoming to sell soon.

      Ummm... I think the Supervolcano will put that under about 40 ft of ash and debris.

      Jackson "Hole" will have a whole new meaning if Yellowstone pops.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
  194. Backwards Development Plan by erichill · · Score: 1
    Mining Mars for building material for Moon bases???

    Huh??

    Sounds good. Go a long way into a relatively deep gravity well to haul up material to schlep back a huge distance to drop into another gravity well that's already full of building material.

    I don't think even NASA could dream up something that inefficient.

    --
    Credo sim. - I think I am.
  195. The brave new world. by bronney · · Score: 0

    It's always good to hear these things in the news. I've always wondered:

    What if some chinese magic happen tomorrow and everyone lost the ability to make, print, use, think, smell.. CASH.

    What if we lose our concept of money tomorrow? Will the world run as usual?

    When you park your car in the gas and fill her up, until it's full, you don't pay cash and nobody demands a price. Will you happily drive off to loblaws and get your grocery for free? Or will you take your red gallon bottle out and fill that with gas you don't need? And then get 12 lettuce you don't eat?

    Of course most people will.

    Will the entire USA population all of a sudden move to beverly hills, soho, seattle, hawaii, and desert the other "less rich" places? Just because we think it's cool to live in hawaii?

    People who're dealing in cash jobs will lose their job. But will they have bread to eat and water to drink? Can they feed their babies and will Ferrari make cars for us? Will GM go out of business because everyone can have a Bentley for free?

    Will JohnC, Sid Meier, and Billy Wright keep making games even if the games doesn't "sell"? I bet they will.

    And that made me think whenever I hear news like these. I know it's all trekkie BS, but until the day we arrive, or at least "build" a new world where it isn't governed by the concept of cash, that we can do something really powerful and huge. And not even 4Frontiers are up to it, yet.

  196. oxygen? by Captain+Truffle+Pig · · Score: 1

    at least they dont need to find oxygen, all they have to do is find that reactor the aliens built and start is up like arnie did

    --
    Interesting, Oh no wait the other thing, Tedious
  197. Riiight.. by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

    So what do they have? As far as I can tell, some pictures of what they want the habitat to look like, and a hope that the SpaceX people will get them there. I think I could have managed to write that site in a week.

    This is not quite the same as colombus setting out for America. Then, people had significant experience of long sea voyages, and were heading for a destination that was already habitable, with a fair few people involved. And the entire mission would not fail if a sail got torn.

    No, going to mars with current technology (Chemical rockets with tiny payloads) is like going from Europe to America in a rowing boat and finding it to be a parched desert when you get there. You could do it - with a heroic effort - but you wouldn't be able to set up a useful colony.

    The bottom line is that a chemical rocket on Earth can only just get out of the gravity well. Even the Saturn 5, lifting a payload of over 100 tonnes to low earth orbit could only get a small lander to the moon and back. It is NOT a matter of bueracuracy, it is a consequence of the physics of the process. Designs that look simple on paper suddenly get complex and expensive because of the desparate need to keep mass down. It's like trying to build the internet on copper alone; no matter how cleverly you use it, no matter how sleek and innovative your company, you'll keep hitting fundamental limits.

    If we are serious about human space exploration and colonisation (and I very much think we should be), then the problem of getting large masses out of the Earth's gravity well in a cheap and reliable manner MUST be solved. If you can build a 50,000 tonne space ship in high earth orbit and then propel THAT to mars orbit, building your colony suddenly gets a lot easier; the problems of food, water, radiation, energy, society, etc are all, fundamentally, problems of mass.

  198. Genesis and the Big Bang by benhocking · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Getting further off-topic - if that was possible :) - Genesis and the Big Bang is a good read (even if it's science is a little out of date). It explains how one can read the Torah literally and not eliminate the Big Bang. I believe (it's been a long time since I read this book) that he also explains how it can allow for evolution. This book is written from a Jewish point of view, but that shouldn't matter.

    I can't remember if I read this in the same book or somewhere else, but the real danger for Christians (et al.) is the practice of making God the "God of the gaps". I.e., squeezing Him into ever smaller holes so that there is nothing left for him to do. I have no idea what the answer to this is for the religious, but it does seem like a legitimate problem. Another problem I've heard of is tying God to close to a particular scientific world-view. For example, if religious leaders go to great lengths explaining how the religious texts predict exactly this new scientific discovery, then if scientists say "whoops" and change their minds on scientific beliefs (as happened rather drastically from Hoyle to Hubble), it makes the religious leaders lose that much more credibility.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  199. by what right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they get permits from the martians?

  200. Belief by benhocking · · Score: 1
    To start with, I have a problem with "believing" anything. There's no place for "believing". You can't just say I "believe" this drug will cure AIDS. It either does or doesn't. You either have evidence and practical material showing that it truly does or you do not.
    Is a fetus alive? I.e., does it have the same rights as you and me? If so, how about an embryo? If not, how about a newborn baby? How can you scientifically "prove" that these are different entitites? As we are getting further and futher off-topic, I encourage you to respond at my journal.
    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  201. whats with all the scam type news lately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the company ignoring the actually cost to go into space? I mean ok even if the world's governments united and made a unified space froniter in the next 5 to 100 years the cost to be out there a day in space would be staggering so how are they going to make any money. Its not economical to spend billions of dollars to operate to make only..... wait who are there customers again? aliens?

  202. Re:FIRST KATRINA 419 POST by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    DEAR SIR,

    WITH DUE RESPECT AND HUMILITY, I WRITE THIS LETTER THAT I MAY REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE IN A DELICATE MATTER OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. I RECEIVED YOUR ADDRESS FROM A CONTACT AT THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) WHO WAS IN NEW ORLEANS. MY FATHER WAS CAUGHT IN THE TRAGIC AFTERMATH OF THE TERRIBLE STORM HURRICANE KATRINA, AND THOUGH HE FOUGHT VALIANTLY, DROWNED IN HIS HOME. IT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE THAT HE INFORMED ME OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCKED BOX ON UNHARMED LAND IN THE FRENCH QUARTER CONTAINING VALUABLES AND CASH SUM OF $20,350,000 DOLLARS (US).

    I HAVE ESCAPED THE STORM IN NEW ORLEANS AND AM CURRENTLY RESIDING IN HOUSTON IN THE ASTRODOME STADIUM. IN ORDER TO AVOID RAISING AN EYEBROW OVER THE HUGH SUM OF MONEY CONTAINED IN THIS LOCKED BOX, I DESPOSITED IT WITH A SECURITY ORGANIZATION FOR SAFEKEEPING PURPOSES. BE INFORMED THAT THE SECURITY ORGANIZATION IS UNAWARE OF THE TRUE CONTENTS OF THIS BOX AND WE DO NOT WANT THEM TO KNOW OF ITS VALUE.

    YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO OPEN A NON RESIDENCE BANK ACCOUNT IN ANY BANK OF YOUR CHOICE IN TEXAS AND GET THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT, THERE AFTER YOU ORDER THE BANK MANAGER TO TRANSFER THE MONEY TO YOUR ACCOUNT. YOU SHALL SOURCE FOR GOOD INVESTMENT FOR US SO THAT WE MAY INVEST THE MONEY WISELY.

    CONCERING THE MONEY, WE ARE PREPARED TO GIVE YOU A REASONABLE SUM OF 40% OF THE TOTAL MONEY AND 5% MAPPED OUT FOR ANY INCUURED EXPENSES. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO ASSIST US, YOU MAY RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO PREPARE ARRANGEMENTS. NO OTHER PERSON KNOWS OF THIS MONEY SO DEISCRETION IS A MUST.

    GOD BE WITH YOU,

    MR. HUGH G RECTION, 419TH ORDER OF THE ROYAL COCKBLOCKERS

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  203. "Easily accessible locations"? by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    And they haven't been exploited like Earth's have, so they're in easily accessible locations.

    Mars is, what a hundred million miles from here? Your definition of "easily accessible" is different from mine.

    Sean

  204. Mars is a dead rock by gsgiles · · Score: 1

    MARS is a dead rock, it has 1% of the atmosphere and a lot less gravity. hence less atmosphere, your head would explode if you took off your space helmet (unlike Val Kilmers in Red Planet). It would take $500B to get there and the crew would die or go insanse on the way. Not even NASA a profligate waster of money wants to do this, they just want the funding to try. Mankind needs way more technology than it currently has for this debacle. NASA went to the moon so we could develop the technology to put nuclear weapons in downtown Moscow (same technology, no selling the truth in 1962). Nixon knew it and killed Moon shots when he took office. The goal was acheived with Navy C-4 and D-5 missile systems. The Space Shuttle is an embarassment, a $100B sinkhole for people that have read to many Buck Rogers novels, and that gets less payload to a lower orbit than the Saturn V at 100X the cost. Investors, keep your dollars away from these fools.

  205. No Teleportaion Experiments by tymbow · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't use any Mars artifacts for teleportaion experiments and open a gateway to hell this sounds like a great plan...

  206. Yes! by garroo · · Score: 1

    It's about damned time! I've been griping about this since I was 17! Now, where can I sign up for some dusty, cold, life-endangering manual labour on another planet? :-) Seriously, getting off this rock is important to the survival of our species! If it means doing it for a mining corporation, so be it. Hell, Europeans came to The Americas looking for Gold....

    --
    Oh my gawd, they killed kenny's mod points!!!!
  207. Ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. where you sell everything else...