Slashdot Mirror
Will Mars be a One-way Trip?
alexj33 writes "Will humans ever really go to Mars? Let's face it, the obstacles are quite daunting. Not only are there numerous, difficult, technical issues to overcome, but the political will and perseverance of any one nation to undertake such an arduous task is huge. However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite possible, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane's proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person."
... shouldn't you at least PLAN on a round-trip ticket, assuming all the obstacles can be overcome, even if it's a long shot?
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
So every system except the human will be doubly or triply redundant? What's wrong with this picture?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I don't like it, and not for the reasons you'd think.
Living alone:
- Biosphere 2 was huge, and *on earth.* It failed. The guy would need a *lot* of support from earth. If it doesn't come during the launch window, fatal results. Come to think of it, almost every adverse scenario results in certain death.
- We have not even done this on the moon yet. Shouldn't this be tried first? Almost all of the mars mission proposals I've seen require a moon base.
Waste: Lots of it. This guy is not going to live in a self-sufficient environment (Biosphere argument) and thus will leave a lot of mars-debris all around. I guess this is minor and some would argue inevitable, but he is going to colonize the whole planet with his own waste products of all sorts.
A thought question: Will a mars mission not irreversibly contaminate Mars? I have often thought about the moon - it used to be sterile, but now there is human / earth bacteria everywhere around the landing sites. NASA does not sterilize probes it sends. What's that? Bacteria can't survive? Actually, they probably can - many species are capable of withstanding cosmic rays and zero atmosphere, etc.
Cue the "I nominate Mitch Bainwol" comments...
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
Shouldn't we send at least two? Or better yet four in total at least? Men and women preferably? Seriously, if it's a one way trip people are going to go nuts without sex, and if it's one way... well at least start colonizing!
Tibbon
tibbon.com
you go to mars. Oddly enough it sounds like a decent idea if you're an uber-smart hermit. I'm still for the colonization idea though cause this almost makes me feel like the ones that go will either kill themselves or develop an elitist attitude towards Earth saying "I left it. Why should I care what happens".
To berate NASA for not wanting to send a multi million (billion?) dollar mission to mars with a pilot that is, after all, suicidal is just asinine.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
A friend handed me a trilogy called Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars. Although superficial and complete sci fi, it does raise quite a few social problems involved in getting a group of people onto the red planet.
A far as the one way argument goes, I believe, being a race that >should look after its own - we should do this with the person coming back without question. This is because survival of a human there, and on the way there and back is the whole point of the exercise.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
Some probes and other scientific gear.
The other mostly environment and landing module.
Or something along those lines.
One ship would carry fuel for the other ships return.
What's left behind could be modular so it could be disassembled for future use.
It's not clear to me what benefits we'd get in trying to get humans to Mars.
Presumably, the technologies developed could be used in many other areas, but why not develop technologies for those problems/needs directly? What can't we learn from automated robots? Would that money be better spent elsewhere? (Admittedly, I work in health research, and I'm biased.).
Going to Mars would be very cool, but I'd imagine that it would require considerable resources. Is it really worth it?
I can think of at least two guys I'd like to volunteer for this duty. They'd be perfect, and they'll be available as early as January 21, 2009.
A crewed mission to Mars won't be that expensive; on the order of $50-70 billion for the first flight (assuming the lunar program has already paid for launch vehicle development), and then around $5-10 billion for each flight after. For comparison, each Shuttle flight costs about $1 billion, and NASA's annual budget is $17 billion. So, it's expensive, but not enough to call for extreme measures.
;)
Besides, most of the value of manned planetary exploration is in the collection and return of choice samples (we're still working through the Apollo samples). A one-way trip rather excludes that possibility...
Simon
I say Mars is an ideal Junket for Congressmen. They love to travel I say give them the trip of their lifetimes. They spend so much money here it's gotta be cheaper just to send them to Mars where they can do some good and a lot less harm.
http://slashdot.org/~mnemotronic/journal/
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
We'll send unmanned missions first. Robots and shit, to build either a reserve of useful stuff or a self-constructing outpost. Hey, we ought to have that by 2050, right?
Then when either the epic stockpile or the foldout Martian resort is complete, send a bunch of humans. See how they do. It's definitely one way only, since there's no way for a lander to have enough fuel to blast off from Mars, let alone bring the requisite infrastructure with it.
Then prepare to send more infrastructure and more people. Keep the colony growing. Only if the first children to be born on Mars fail, for lack of better word, is the project cancelled. A rescue mission should take place then, since it'll have been enough years to reach 2100 or something like that and we'll doubtlessly have better materials, science etc. to pull off a rescue mission from the surface of Mars.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Don't answer that.
#!
a lot of provisions and company (for one way trips: at least 2 men, at least 2 women). the force would also be good.
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
And that man should be genetically engineered to live on Mars all by himself! And have a backpack computer that talks to another computer in Mars orbit!
Hmmmn, where have I heard that before...
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
All of the other technological components will be designed to be redundant... it seems like an oversight not to have a backup human.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Paint this in the rocket: The first "human" in Mars. Mission Accomplished.
And put Bush aboard, he will be very happy.
I can't see this getting off the ground, because there is no way any administrator or supporter with political backing could say "Yes we are going to send a man to Mars, but we'll leave him there". Even if the plan goes on to include autonomously dropping facilities to build himself a way off the planet, it won't matter, because the media and public reaction won't get past the abandonment part.
No man left behind!
Clever troll.
/.er is going to fall for something like this anymore?
Don't click, its a goat.cz link... Do any of these trolls REALLY think that the average
Unless this actually is OT, in some strange, vaguely DaDa way.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
By the time a human trip is possible we will have much more capable robots, and they're less likely to get ill during the flight there. It would be an amazing experience for that one person if they did make it though.
Could we send someone depressed or with little will to live? Suicidal people can become very distraught if they are suddenly faced with terminal cancer. It could be disasterous if weeks into the trip they realize that they want to live after all. We would have to send someone stable and yet willing to face inevitable death. How many of you would sign up for a one way trip and not have buyer's remorse?
TIAEAE!
Only if we can nominate and vote on who goes.
Get your ass to Mars.
See, instead of everyone looking at their navel, people will start raising their head and will start looking at the stars. Instead of having most people working for their own goals, people will start to share a dream. Instead of fighting each other, people will start to work as a team.
I'm currently working in the field of psychology and even though I'm not high on the ladder, the calls I receive are about couples breaking up and people complaining of surviving instead of living. A lot of people are living without knowing what to do with their life and this is the kind of goal that might bring people together and give them something to do with their life even if in the grand scheme of things it is useless.
Also, about the benefits, you can't go wrong with studying how to negate the effects of loneliness which apparently affects tons of people that live in cities. Also you get to fight back bone problems that are not that different from the problems aging people have. Of course, you also get the technologies for space travel but you don't care for that that much.
So is it worth it ? I say sure, why not?
I nominate Jack Thompson. Also good possibilities: Ricky Martin, Geraldo Rivera, and that guy with the horribly loud voice that does those cleaning product commercials.
Must be mathematically and/or scientifically gifted, enjoy solitude, long periods of limited sensory input.
such an event would unify the world as never before
Sure, as long as you're talking about Mars, and that's just because there'd only be one guy there. Back here on Earth, everyone would go on fucking and fighting the way they always have, though a few might pause to watch some of the news coverage.
Unifying this world would take an alien invasion, and that would last just long enough for us to start losing badly against their superior technology, after which there would be an awe-inspiring race to stab each other in the back to curry favor with our new alien overlords. Face it, there's only so much you can do with a bunch of aggressive, paranoid primates no matter how smart they are.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Personally, I'd be honored for the chance to be the first person on Mars, even if it meant I'd only be there for a short while, and then die. I mean, as it now is, I really don't do much. I go to work, I go home. Eventually I'll die, and a few days after that, I'll be pretty much forgotten. It'll be like I was never here. But if I went to Mars, even if I died, well then at least what I did and where I ended up would be remembered, and that's as close to immortality as a human can get. I mean, some day I have to die. Why not die for some purpose?
Can we send the RIAA on a one-way trip to Mars?
You're all narrow-minded and desperately earthbound.
I read the article and my first thought was where do I sign up!
- Dewspite being a reasonably well-educated geek, I don't have an "advanced degree" in anything
- I'm not a US citizen
- I'm over 30
So you see, given my age, this would realistically be my only chance to personally set foot on "The Red Planet". And we need this - Humanity on other planets, and space exploration in general.If the last (and coolest) thing I do with my life commits "us Terrans" to serious levels of ongoing space and interplanetary exploration, it would be worth the effort (er, sacrifice).
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Charles Lindbergh is supposed be the inspiration for this, but the guy knows jack about him. Lindbergh didn't set out to do a risky stunt. He was contending for the Orteig prize for the first aircraft to fly New York/Paris (either way) non-stop. Several previous attempts had ended tragically, and Lindbergh was convinced they failed because previous designers had not paid enough attention to various safety margins, especially those relating to weight and fuel. Thus he designed a plane that put fuel tanks in every conceivable space (including the place where any other aircraft would have had a windshield!) and did everything he could think of to minimize weight.
That's why he flew alone: it's not that hard to stay awake for 36 hours, and so he saw a co-pilot as unnecessary extra weight.
Ironically, he got lucky and didn't drift off course as much as he assumed he would, arriving at Paris with enough leftover fuel to continue to Rome. But he designed his plane on the assumption that he would not be lucky. He was a safety-first guy, that's why he succeeded where others failed. It ridiculous to associate him with this insane proposal.
you want to bring the world together? Solve all the problems necessary to bring back the crew. Then go..
Sounds fun, though, why one-way? Do we want this person to die out there, and for what cause? Just to start on a colony on Mars (Rhyme not intended)? Or just to have a human experience a new planet for him/herself? These are daunting questions, and who has the answers?
-Aegis Runestone-
My really stupid shooter, Independent (which you can reg code 1138), has that exact thesis. A guy goes to another planet on a one way trip.
Seriously, I've given this some thought, and one way trips to another planet aren't unthinkable. There's always going to be someone that doesn't like the Earth, for perhaps religious or political reasons, and moving to another planet always seems like an attractive option.
This is my sig.
Wouldn't there be more merit to have one big space station that's self sufficient? We can get artificial gravity from centripetal force to maintain their health too. This would be a much greater benefit since it provides a lab with no gravity where a vacuum is readily available. You'd be surprised what those two factors alone could help researchers. Especially in material fabrication and pharmaceuticals.
Help fight spam
space travel is boring.
Anything to get away from these morally bankrupt governments here on Earth.
* When I type "totally self-sufficient", I mean totally.
That includes the capability to create all replacement parts, including electronics and so forth.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
(fyi: link
\
Kim Stanley Robinson suggested something like this in Red Mars. First bunch of people sent are highly motivated types who know they have no way to return. They are on their own, having only the supplies and equipment dropped ahead of time, and have to rely on their own abilities to survive.
- Nukes is about our best bet. Sadly, ppl fight that. But the Japaneses system that is designed to support 10-100 MW would be ideal (20 MW, for 30+ years).
- Solar being beamed. A simple power sat above that beams down the energy. Probably not a bad way to disribute power around the planet, but I would not want to depend on it.
- Geo-thermal. There is some very good indication that there is heat close to the surface in several areas. That could change everything. Provide clean power and heat. I would still prefer the above as well.
Once we have energy there, it is easy to have robots build. Even a remote control arm can work at burying several Bigelow systems. Once buried AND a garden is started for food, then we are good to go. There is no doubt that many ppl would volunteer. I know that If I were younger, I would.BTW, one weird idea would be to send a bunch of women and have them serve as incubators. In particular, if we send several missions of women AND zygotes, then we can grow a colony there. It may be a lot cheap approach to guarantee bio-diversity. In fact, I would think that once we have several small groups there, that we should send not just human zygotes, but also seeds and a number of animal zygotes. it would be useful for just in case.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Who needs other people? Hell is other people, according to Sarte.
(cue Barbra Streisand: people who need people are the luckiest people in the world...)
The real concern would be, where does the food 'n stuff come from? ("this smells like the same old oxygen...")
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Do you realize, if that is true, that is a great achievement! We have created extra-terrestrial life for the first time in the know history of the Universe. It is an achievement as great as creating Artificial Life. Eventually, that bacteria may evolve into, who knows, ET or even little green men.
Woman from Venus!
in that case make sure we send a woman then the men already on Mars can breed!!
Why are we so fascinated by the idea of someone physically being somewhere?
But I'd volunteer if the one-way mission is a reality. I don't find it necessary to live among other humans in close distance. And once on Mars, I won't do shit. What, are they gonna fire me?
It means having to allocate resources to it. That should not be the case. All resources for the person or team should be devoted to building a base . Personally, I believe that we should send 6 ppl to there. But they should count on it being a true one way mission. Make it or die.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wait fifty years, modify some humans using nanotech so they're Transhuman, then go to Mars or anywhere else we want to go.
Why do we have to go next year or next decade? Mars isn't going anywhere that I know of.
If it's not immediately technically feasible, wait (and work on it) until it is. That's, uh, not rocket science, right?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Huh?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The Chinese as a potential competitor: they are a big nation with a strong political structure which is capable of sustaining the effort over decades.
The Russians as a potential competitor: they have a lot of invaluable experience and engineering talent, and the moon race proved popular in the past.
The Americans as a potential competitor: they also have invaluable experience and resources, as long as the political difficulties are resolved.
The Europeans as a potential competitor: they also have advanced technology and engineering talent, but the political difficulties are probably the greatest of the lot.
IMHO, as long as we can get two competitors going, we might actually get to Mars this century after all.
One way trip? *gulp*
The Russians did it first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika
The US did it later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_in_space
I don't think the PR would go down well sending a human into space. Well maybe if you chose a particularly unpopular lawyer or politician...
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Werner von Braun's plan for going to Mars was published in the 1950s. It's worth reviewing it.
Ah, the good old days of industrial production. If China does a Mars program, it might look like that.
Perhaps they could call it Capricorn II. Even a big budget movie costs less than a space shot, and the script could be changed to suit the whims of politicians. Want to kill our hero off like Ana Lucia on Lost? No problem. Heck, if they pretend to send up an Adam and Eve we could have a fake family and eventually a fake civilization. We could trash our planet trusting there is a viable alternative. Or better yet we could send old people there then their palms start to glow. Or we can send lottery winners or latter day gladiators there. Maybe I should turn the idiot box off.....
>>NASA does not sterilize probes it sends.
> Yes, they do.
No, they don't. Please read up on what "sterilize" means and stop spreading misinformation.
Oh, heck, you probably would have done it by now if you were going to.
Sterilize = kill ALL bacteria. You can put something that has been sterilized in your bloodstream and not get direct infection or exposure to bacteria.
Sanitize = kill bacterial to a certain threshold or standard, or kill harmful bacteria. You can lick something that has been sanitized and probably not get sick. However, if you cultured that hospital toilet seat, you can be sure you'd get bacteria.
Bioload reduction = "We're pretty much sure that it is not covered in stool or loads of harmful bacteria, but beyond that can't say."
It is almost impossible to build something the size of Mars rovers and have it be STERILE. Anything exposed to general atmosphere for over 20 seconds or so is no longer sterile. Even in the O.R. (which has special filters and a non-recirculating atmosphere) things exposed to the air for prolonged period are considered unsterile. If any of you guys worked in a bio lab, open up a can of L.B. broth, and walk away. After 20 minutes, recap it. What happens?
I really appreciate whoever sent me the planetary protection link, and it confirmed what I thought. We are *very* concerned about bringing foreign / alien bacteria here, but it is just about impossible to keep us from spreading our own throughout the universe.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
Sending one person on a one-way trip to Mars isn't exploration, it's a publicity stunt.
And a morbid one at that.
so lesse: we get to follow the preparations on earth, the endless documentaries about this heroic figure venturing into space never to return, months of enroute radio commentary from said hero, ...and his last words immortalized for decades on T-Shirts the world over...
the endless sad goodbyes of friends and family...transmissions of our hero's last gasps as the oxygen runs out...the melancholy music tracks that will be played when they announce his death...
Why does he need to stay alive once he gets there? Can't he just walk around Mars and record what he sees and send it back to earth until he runs out of supplies and dies? I mean I would probably go to Mars and look around a place no one has ever been to if it meant I would be remembered as "that guy who went to Mars and just walked around until he died," and I'm only slightly insane. I bet you could find someone crazy enough to do it and still smart enough to keep the spaceship running.
Spacex is building a craft that by 2011 will launch the same amount as the shuttle. But he is working on his BFR, which is expected after that, though the time frame is not known. Less than saturn, more than the largest today. Several launches of that, and build up a bigelow system. That system is capable of carrying 4-6 ppl to mars. Once there, they descend to mars in a seperate capsule while the bigelow system comes down seperately. In the next launch window, Goods are sent. Preferably via several bigelow systems. There should be a safety factor on this, that before anybody is sent to mars, that there is already goods for at least 1 window AND they are sent with supplies for a window. The idea being that everybody has at least 2 windows worth of supplies, but separated out (not all at one time or put together).
But Yeah, we need to get back our industrial production.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
(I assume that you are typing about medicine; if you are typing about sex, have you not heard of celibacy?
Most people on this forum are, uh, "intimately" familiar with that term.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
China's tech currently was bought and/or stolen from various sources. They do have an industrial base now that AMerica chose to give it up so easily. But China is not likely to be the one.
Russia and America have nearly ALL of the engineering and experience talent. Both have shared a bit with ISS, but not enough. Russia has not been very good at landings (save on venus, but that was more floating, than landing).
Russia has fresh money and may be able to do this IFF they straighten up their gov. America could do it IFF it is private enterprise. The reason is that it is doubtful that our gov. would fund something that will require multiple decades worth of funding. But private enterprise, esp. if backed by Musk, Bigelow, Allen, Bezoes, etc. could.
EU has neither the engineering or the experience to do this. Yet. They are launching their first vehicle which will dock. It makes extensive use of Russian know-how as well as American know-how for their rockets. All in all, EU really is at best a decade away from being able to think about it, let alone do it.
So, who might get there? I think that it will be either another ISS approach (America, russia, and the west) or it will be private enterprise. If it is private enterprise, they WILL send a one way mission with 6 ppl, and their sole purpose at first will be establish a beach head and explore for minerals or bio-logicals.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You all are looking at this in completely the wrong way. The cost of getting stuff up into space doesn't have to be significant. We can send tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of crap up there relatively inexpensively, and the vehicle to do it would be reusable and have a significant lifetime. Just build an Orion spaceship. Piece of cake. We can send thousands of people up, tonnes of supplies.. heck we could launch an entire colony in one shot, and not really have to worry much about carefully conserving every gram of fuel.
What's an Orion?
Glad you asked: Orion Spacecraft Rule
Nuclear pulse propulsion behind giant push-plates on springs, man! With a payload measured by the tonne rather than the kilo!
Dick Cheney.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
(I assume that you are typing about medicine; if you are typing about sex, have you not heard of celibacy?
Most people on this forum are, uh, "intimately" familiar with that term.)
No, seriously. I now have 2 children, and could not volunteer. But prior to that, I would done it quickly. In fact, on /., I have pushed for 1 way missions to mars for a long time, and before 4 years ago, I suggested that I would volunteer.
This will not be a suicide mission. The ppl that go first, will be thought of like Leif Erickson, or Christopher Columbus (ignoring all the down sides on him). Even if my life were cut down to another 10 years, it makes the life worth living. I am amazed at the complete lack of balls on these postings. Our society has become WAY too soft. We no longer seem to put pride on our accomplishment, only on what we accumulate. That is a real sad state of affairs for the west and shows me a lot about us.
I am truly glad that you have the balls and the foresight to see this for what it is; a chance to change the future. Hell, you would do more for earth than bill gates has.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
sounds like you have been practising for this trip for a long time.
Our glorious ancestors went on one-way trips when the alternative was certain death or hopeless oppression. I will concede that was 'a matter of course' in our past, it is not our current reality. More contemporary explorers (Columbus, Lewis & Clark, Amundson, Armstrong, etc.) had every expectation of returning and have taken every possible precaution. Did they accept the fact that they might not return? Yes. But never did they have this suicidal death wish you seem to think is some kind of virtue.
Those that traveled to the poles, regularly died. They had little food and resorted to eating their dogs (which latter became accepted as being the only way to do it). In several cases, they resorted to cannibalism (and I would guess more than just a few). No, many of these groups STARVED to death. The lucky ones froze to death. Many did not.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Lessee, the proposed Mars one-way will cost $50-70B and will kill one person. But we're spending $3 TRILLION on Iraq/Afghanistan which has resulted in 600-800,000 kills.
... so why do people think that its too expensive ?
Clearly this Mars one-way is an inefficient way to kill people. Still I'd much rather spend the $$$ on the Mars one-way than Iraq. I mean in absolute terms, it will only cost 2% of what we spent on Iraq
Indeed we *could* have spent the $3T on Mars instead and maybe could make it a full return trip, no ?
And I'm sure there are thousands of people more qualified than me that would too. The current plans to send a team of people and return them to Earth have a team size of 5 or 6 people and a stay of about 18 months. If you remove the equipment needed for the return journey, the same size mission can support 20-24 people for 18 months. If the team size is reduced to 1 person you could send enough supplies to last for 30-36 years. That's plenty of time to find some way of extending it by building a greenhouse or whatever.
It's not accurate to compare the Biosphere 2 project with this mission. The biggest problem with Biosphere 2 is that concrete was used in the construction and it absorbs oxygen for years after it is first poured. I'm sure that the work done on the In-Situ Resource Utilisation by Bob Zubrin and others would be the preferred approach for this mission. google ISRU and you'll get plenty of info on that.
Bill Stone is currently planning something similar. If you've never heard of Bill Stone and you're interested in space exploration you have to watch this presentation by him at TED. Bill Stone at TED.
johno
872835240
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
Is the lone astronaut G.W. Bush ?
I'm sure if we launched him into orbit, never to return, we could finally have global peace. At least for the 5 minutes while everyone is watching it on TV.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Think of the possibilities!
For immunity contests you could have:
A Mt. Olympus climb,
Resource prospecting activities,
Water ice collection trips,
Locking down solar panels, antennas, and other breakables before dust storms,
Environment leak repair due to a puncture from a sandstorm.
The winner gets *$10 million*!
If there are hidden hostile intelligent martians, then you just keep the contestants around for a second season called "Lost: Mars"
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I just finished watching this 1974 science fiction cult classic. How appropriate to come across this posting on /. afterwards.
And the capsule, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting,
On the palid dust of planet just below my chamber door.
And it's lights have all the seeming of a Demon's that is dreaming,
While the sunlight o'er him streaming throws its shadow on the floor.
And my soul from out that shadow which lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted [to Earth] nevermore!
Here's my two cents. It doesn't make sense to send just one dude that far away from home, on a one-way, there's-no-going-back, never-see-home-again mission. Can you imagine how much it would suck to be marooned as the only person on an entire planet, millions of miles from home?
It would make a lot more sense to do the following:
First, figure out how to build a biosphere that can exist on Mars and function properly. This would basically mean that here on Earth, you'd have to build two biospheres, one inside another. The outer one would have to simulate the environment on Mars as closely as possible. The inner one would have to simulate the environment on Earth. This concept must be proven and there must be an implementation that can function for an extended period of time without outside help.
Second, build robots that can assemble a massive biosphere. These would be pretty big robots, so you'd need to build smaller robots that can assemble the bigger ones.
Third, design an enormous unmanned space cargo ship. Since such a thing would have to be extremely large, it would have to be assembled in space, with components that would be built on Earth and launched into orbit for assembly. It would have to be able to fly to Mars and then return to Earth.
Fourth, design packages to parachute down to Mars from the large space vehicle. These packages would be extremely large and would need guidance systems to bring them all to the same landing site. The cargo would be packaged on Earth, launched up to the big cargo ship, and loaded inside.
Fifth, send the unmanned cargo ship to Mars, where it will arrive and begin dropping the packages to the landing site. Once all the packages are dropped, the cargo ship would break orbit with Mars and return to Earth for the next load.
Now, instead of building one cargo ship, you build many cargo ships and send them in a staggered pattern so that a ship arrives to Mars every several months. Initially, the cargo would consist of robots, robot parts, biosphere parts, and lots of other supplies, like metal, lumber, tools, anything you might find in a hardware store, dishes, soap, computers, vehicles, water, and lots of other stuff. Among all this cargo, you'd send all the materials and parts necessary to build a launch site on the surface of Mars, not to mention rocket parts and whatnot, to enable return transit in the future. It would obviously take a very long time just to engineer all of this and build the parts on Earth and in orbit. Once that is nearing completion, and the first cargo ship is ready to go, the process of sending supplies to Mars would begin. That process alone might take place over a period of 50 years. Once the first shipment arrives, the robots would begin to assemble parts, with help from operators here on Earth. The idea is to build one or more structures, each the size of several city blocks, complete with places of residence, places to work, gardens to grow food, and of course the necessary power generators, water cleaners, and all that good stuff. The entire way of life would actually have to be engineered, so that waste products could be used somehow. And until the first humans arrive, all of this would be done by remote control with the robots serving as our eyes and hands. Kind of like playing ADVENT.
Ok, now that portion is nearing completion, and it's time to start sending people over there. Take a cargo ship and turn it into a huge passenger ship where people can live for the several years that the journey would take. Send 500 people, including doctors, scientists, engineers, handymen, etc. By the way, the cargo ships with supplies never stop going to Mars during this process. And every few years, another ship full of people arrives. Build a small town on Mars! And furthermore, in order for it not to be a one-way trip, the people going there, with the help of the heavy equipment, robots, and whatnot, would get the launch site built. Among all of the thousands of packages sent would be many parts for things that the
There is no need for a trip to Mars to be one-way only. Robert Zubrin lays out a detailed plan of a round-trip to Mars in the non-fiction book The Case for Mars.
Getting people to Mars and back is entirely possible. It wouldn't be cheap, but it could be done with current technology for well under 100 billion US$. Basically two or three launches to Mars are needed and would land on Mars near each other. One of the launches would contain a spacecraft with the three or four people. Another launch would contain a return-to-earth craft. Nothing is going to automatically wipe out the astronauts who make the couple year round trip. However, the astronauts' risk of getting cancer some time during their life will be increased probably by a couple percent.
In terms of the cost $50 billion is not chump change and would probably be better spent on things like healthcare. But sending people to Mars is a much better investment than the trillion dollars spent on the war on Iraq.
You almost have to question whether someone who would be willing to go on what's basicly a suicide mission is mentally stable enough to actually complete the mission.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
...think of the lag you'd have playing CS:S!
Anyway. . .
The gist of the story was this:
Invention of Teleporter Tech makes redundant Earth's commercial inter-system space liners. The man who owns the biggest space liner company is now broke, and decides to make a thirty-year trip to the nearest inhabitable colony planet rather than teleport there in fifteen minutes. It's a pride thing. --Also, he's suspicious, since the teleporters apparently only work in one direction and the happy happy video messages coming back from the colony are fakes. . .
So a basic sci-fi plot outline, right? Ha! This is PKD, so that was just the first third of the book. After that some LSD gets involved, and it turns out that the teleporter device splits reality into 11 distinct variations of nightmare and you never know which you happen to be in after you've traveled through. --And there's also this time-travel weapon which inserts events into your past to manipulate your present. And did I mention the LSD? He actually described an acid trip in lurid detail for five solid pages. (Cuz when you're writing in the sixties, the soldiers of the future use weaponized LSD rounds in their space rifles. That and PKD's editor was probably high at the time.)
Oi. I just wanted some light reading. . . What the heck was I thinking?
-FL
1. Parent is dead on; wish I had mod points.
Mars could already be a shorter trip (each way) - that we know MUCH more about, and have more ability to deploy resources for - than Magellan's was, just as an example.
But, I have two opposing points:
2. Think of the robots. Basically, we have robots now, which simply are better for this kind of exploring. So we don't need a human there to EXPLORE Mars (or the moon.) Obviously the current rovers are massively, massively cheaper than a manned mission... and I think we could get more done with hundreds of rovers than some dude. a) For any given cost, the robots will probably do the exploring better. In other words, I think we should send a person to Mars when it's economically profitable to send a _person_ there compared to the robots. We just don't NEED some guy to go there anymore.
b) I think the cost involved in a human mission would be tremendous if the gain is largely symbolic. You don't go there just to touch it, you go there to find out a lot more about all sorts of things you didn't know.
c) So the other reason to go there is to _colonize_ to really expand the scope of human life to a new place.
c) in my opinion involves either: i) generate resources FROM Mars instead of spending a ton to be there or to ii) have a sufficient breeding population of humanity off earth that we'll survive a colossal extinction event. I believe i) will come before ii) AND I think i) is more likely to be done by remote control, too... or at least most of it. So wait for a NEED for a person - which personally I feel like will be a long time coming; the robots will get better faster than our ability to cheaply get a person there So maybe the first person will be a paying tourist.
3. While I think Mars is close enough to be within reach, there are things we've skipped. I think all of the above applies to the moon, but I think it's so significantly cheaper to send stuff to the moon than to Mars. We're just finally going to put a telescope on the moon... For that matter, I think we should have orbiting solar power pretty soon.
We only have like 3 people living outside our atmosphere. I think that's shameful in some ways... but there's no reason we need to "touch" Mars with a real person before we have commercial occupation of something closer / cheaper* - the technology we need for that to be sustainable - longer term, more sustainable, cheaper inhabiting of harsh environments - is something we can demonstrate much closer.
*unless it turns out a person on Mars would help us mine something ridiculously expensive, or something. But a cluster of robots could have a higher chance of finding that for less money.
I'd certainly accept that having the nice thin unbreathable atmosphere there might involve some cost savings in radiation damage/shielding, pressurization, etc. But that's only a justification if those costs are going to outweigh the much-higher lift costs and the much-lower chance of a bail-out.
The good news is we're getting there - commercial boost to space is becoming practical, commercial space tourism is growing, and that means soonish a space hotel could be a reality - and as costs drop, hopefully attendance will increase. And by all means explore Mars extensively before we're ready to go there... just don't waste a ton of money on symbolism; spend that money wisely.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
I think the first few missions to Mars should have people shorter than 5 ft to minimize the resource requirements.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
China will quite easily have all these problems solved.
I don't think analogies apply here, this is nothing like Lindburg, this is so far beyond that.
Even without resupply and a likely limited lifespan (say two years) I would do it.
Face it, most of us will lead mundane 9 to 5 insignificant lives and will likely die a forgotten death lingering in a hospital bed. Why wouldn't you trade that for a chance to blaze a completely new trail for humanity, to truly go, where no one has gone before.
I am sure there are a lot of scientist who trade the rest of their life for 2 years studying Mars in person.
Besides that, he is talking about sending company, resupply etc.
On top of that, this would be a volunteer mission. I don't quite get the nervous nellies who have a problem with someone else making this choice. It might not be for them, but they should at least be able to realize that for some this is an inspirational idea.
I just can't believe the amount hand wringing over this.
Though I think it is immediately clear that this will never be done because of the tender sensibilities of the public. If even the slashdot crowd are getting bent out of shape, the general public would frothing at the mouth.
We seem to be becoming a world of spineless weepy nannies.
One with a fairly known and characterized course, like pancreatic cancer. Doesn't hurt much at all, and then one dies usually within 6 months after diagnoses. Five year survival is less than 5%.
Hell, if I had something like that, I'd probably volunteer.
..........FULL STOP.
...then put all the hair dressers and telephone cleaners in it...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Hillary or Bill? Such a tough decision. Well, maybe not. Hillary.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
for a start, what if something happens and they die? it would also drive anyone insane, being the only man alive on another planet.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
...........once we invent spaceships with in-flight artificial gravity, can leave vertically via anti-gravity, and...hmm... wouldn't that solve most of the problems? We're done! Yay!
And here I was, planning a summer holiday on Mars this year. Guess it'll have to wait.
This article and the comments baffle me. Maybe I'm not a true geek, but who the heck wants to live on Mars? It's a miserable, cold, wasteland. From the article, "We shouldn't be stuck on this rock forever." This rock? This ROCK? Our planet is an incredible, wonderful place. Human beings evolved here, and like it or not if we're taken away from it we suffer. I can't imagine anything more important or better than living a human life on earth. Would you really trade your life away for a place in a history book? It's not important how history remembers us but what kind of men and women we are. We have a hell of a lot of work to do here, we don't need to start colonizing other planets. We're still killing each other like damn animals. If you ask me, this is less about progress and more about not wanting to accept the cards that we have been dealt. Hell, maybe warp travel isn't possible, maybe we're stuck in this solar system, or if we travel away it will have to be in suspended animation and the time dilation will mean everyone we ever know will be dead when we re-emerge. Maybe there's no way to communicate faster than we can now. Are these things really so horrible? Would it be such a horrific thing to live on our planet as best we can until our sun goes supernova and then just die? Before we go deciding we're going to start firing off rockets full of people on one way trips maybe first we should come to terms with our humanity and learn how to live together in harmony.
The problem is, how do you find and train an individual that will die on schedule? All it takes is a fuel tank sensor glitch to send you back six months and one trained astronaut who would then die on the way to Mars. Unless you have a whole crew of them, with death dates planned out years in advance... Now THERE'S a SciFi story for ya.
at the poles. The reason is that once somebody is sent there, what are the chances that we will withhold supplies? NONE. It would take a nuclear war. The problem is, that at the poles, you had oxygen, but you had no energy as in wood, no food, and NO CHANCE OF GETTING THESE from elsewhere. On mars, no doubt that there will all sorts of extra supplies, solar cells, gardening, etc. IOW, the mars case has little chance of being a suicide mission, whereas the pole ones were ALL suicides until the first successes. BTW, my reading comprehension is just fine. It is your logic and reasoning that requires work.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But, even on mars it will not be self-contained. They will use the atmosphere to obtain N2 and O2. In addition, there is plenty of external water there in the form of ice. Go after that with a robot. All in all, the only real issue will be energy. Solar cells would be a disaster. So as I pointed out elsewhere, a future base will want to use several types of energy (nukes, power sats, and geo-thermal; there are several hot spots on the planet that indicates that heat is coming from down below). Other than the nuke, ALL is pretty easy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Most people on this forum are, uh, "intimately" familiar with that term.)
Sex would be nice. I meant companionship. Talking to yourself 100 million miles from the nearest person can be kinda lonely.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
It's a "no-way trip", 'cos it's not going to happen. Any of the Zubrin true-believers care to take a bet with me on this?
This article and the comments baffle me. Maybe I'm not a true geek, but who the heck wants to live in Europe? It's a miserable, cold, wasteland. From the article, "We shouldn't be stuck on this rock forever." This rock? This ROCK? Our continent is an incredible, wonderful place. Human beings evolved here, and like it or not if we're taken away from it we suffer. I can't imagine anything more important or better than living a human life in Africa. Would you really trade your life away for a place in a history book? It's not important how history remembers us but what kind of men and women we are. We have a hell of a lot of work to do here, we don't need to start colonizing other land masses. We're still killing each other like damn animals. If you ask me, this is less about progress and more about not wanting to accept the cards that we have been dealt. Hell, maybe sailing out of the sight of land isn't possible, maybe we're stuck in the Old World, or if we travel away it will take years and the time away will mean everyone we know could be dead when we get back. Maybe there's no way to communicate faster than walking to the next village. Are these things really so horrible? Would it be such a horrific thing to live on our continent as best we can until the Sahara desert spreads south and then just die? Before we go deciding we're going to start firing off caravans full of people on one way trips maybe first we should come to terms with our humanity and learn how to live together in harmony.
Or, wait... Maybe I'm just talking out my ass and finding a new place to live, where nobody has ever lived before, doesn't destroy my humanity. Maybe, [gasp] other places may also contain beauty and the resources to build a civilization, inspiring us to develop in new and unexpected directions which result in the creation of more incredible, wonderful places for humanity to call home. Maybe, maybe the desire, no the NEED to explore is a key part of the very foundation of being human. That could even be what has made us what we are... Unafraid to open our eyes, our minds and our hearts to look beyond the animal needs of the moment and become human.
TIAEAE!
Listening to lectures from and having discussions with Dyson Freeman, I am more and more convinced that sending probes is the only really useful and financially responsible thing to do for the forseeable future. What is the point of actually sending someone who is going to perish? Yes, it is the fodder of my beloved sci-fi, but let's get the best bang for the buck and wait for FTL, eh?
Do what any good geek would do: Make an AI.
I mean, I guess Phobos has the "fear" covered...
Honestly, I won't be surprised if we don't even see a base on the Moon in the next 50 years let alone even thinking about sending someone to Mars.
I can't help but think that the West, particularly America has lost its vision. They can't see beyond next week let alone the next 10 years. What would be the predicable reaction to a proposal to spend billions on a manned mission anywhere? That money should be used here on Earth! We should be dumping it into yet another poorly conceived, wasteful social program. Nevermind that what would be learned from such an ambitious undertaking would be a great boon to us for years.
Americans can barely get large-scale construction projects going anymore. For decades there have been proposals for a link across the Long Island Sound; I point out this particular example because I live in the area. Recently a new proposal for a tunnel was made. And what was the reaction? Some politicians representing the towns on either end of the proposed tunnel start whining about the impact it will have. Then come the bleeding hearts concerned about the environmental impact of having to dump all the dirt and rock somewhere. Around the world, there are currently 10 major tunnel construction projects on this scale underway. For Americans, however, such a project is unfathomable.
If they can't even get behind a project like this how in the hell are they ever going to accept a manned mission to Mars which requires far more foresight, imagination and patience.
Americans by and large don't want progress. They claim they're looking for change, but what they really want is security. They certainly aren't going to back a project that diverts money from that goal. I didn't really intend to rant like this, but what I've been seeing leaves me a bit pessimistic.
Heavy metals are unfortunately heavy which makes transporting nuclear power plants by rocket a little difficult. Broadcast power doesn't work very well yet. Geothermal power requires knowing what is under the ground. As for the final dream on the list - yuk. It makes me rather happy I'm not talking to you in person.
I've often thought it would be viable to use volunteers from death row for a one-way trip to Mars. Why not? They'd get a chance to redeem themselves, contribute to human knowledge, become famous, survive as long as possible, control their destiny for a time (which might be short), and then end it all at a suitable time with supplied euthanasia pills. This would be strictly voluntary, but I'd bet you would get hundreds of volunteers! I'd certainly do it if I had to choose a trip to Mars vs. spending the rest of my life in solitary and then facing the lethal injection.
What if we were to send someone on a long term mission, with plans to bring him back in, say, 10 years? That way, we have some time to work on the costs and technical difficulties. I think the public support would be there if they thought the guy would be coming back. Plus, I'm sure it would be a lot easier to fundraise for the second mission to ensure his safe return!
Just listen to your thoughts. It is obvious that you are a total pessimist. Making thing like this work, is a lot like building an OS. You have to have faith in yourself as well as confidence that you can make it work. In some ways, you also have to not know that it is not possible. BTW, Saturn V sent 50 tons to the moon, which would also be 50 ton to mars. By sending 2 vehicles, one with the nuke core and the other with the landing vehicle, it makes it possible to send a nuke to Mars. Broadcast power does not work well HERE. But Mars has a VERY thing atmosphere in which beaming power is very easy(some lose, but nothing like here). BTW, the DOD is now looking seriously at using power sats here on earth. Obviously, you need to know what is there. Hence the reason why we send missions there.
Your last statement says a lot about you. What difference does it matter if in person or over the net?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For me, I think one of the worst parts would be the suffocating silence of a planet with nothing else on it but myself. That and loneliness itself would be hard to deal with. I'll bet the sky would be beautiful, though, at least for awhile.
One of the best parts would be the launch from Earth, plus finally getting to Mars, although I don't know how much I'd trust the landing to keep me in one piece.
The surface of Venus might not allow for colonization, but what about the upper atmosphere of Venus?
2) Now people on slashdot argue about Microsoft virtues and why Apple is no good because it lacks market share.
3) My wife disapproves of my girlfriends.
WHERE DO I SIGN UP FOR THIS ONE WAY TRIP OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
This was developed for transportation to the moon. It makes it possible to put a 10-100 MW, 40 year battery on the moon or mars. Obviously, if we are going to colonize there, we will need a LOT of energy for a long period.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem is, how do you find and train an individual that will die on schedule?
Take a page out of the McDonald's business plan, and design your technology so that there is a bare minimum of training necessary. The First Martian will have 200 days to study up once they are in the sky. It gives them something to do while they wait, and the more they study the longer they will likely live when they get there. Hella motivation, and an opportunity for someone to truly maximize the last days of their life. But cancer or not, I'm sure there will be volunteers.
We are all just people.
Qouthe the parent: The author is right, it's initially kind of a shocking proposal, but when you stop to think about it, we're just a bunch of wusses. Our ancestors did this kind of risky one-way shit as a matter of course. (Think of how the Polynesians colonized the entire Pacific in simple canoes.) Actually the Polynesians colonised most of the Pacific sailing into the wind. This made the return voyage, if they didn't find land, faster and easier than the venturing out. Neither risky nor one-way. The space exploration version would probably be budgeting one third of your resources for the outgoing trip, two thirds for the return.
Most people on Slashdot are about as likely to live in celibacy as anyone else of similar age. The joke stopped being funny aproximately 5 years ago, did you notice the trend in participation in discussions about stuff like "protecting your children online", "internet in primary schools", "ideal laptops for kids" and so on ?
If you didn't, well, that's your loss.
Actually, a fair part of the population on Slashdot these days live in stable relationships and have kids. Me, i've got 3, but I think that's somewhat over-average.
You must be new here.
rewriting history since 2109
Psh, sex is overrated. We're nerds right? So long as he doesn't mind internet pages taking 10 minutes to load he's set, am I right? ;)
Weaksauce as they say...
There's actually a book on this topic with some interesting scenarios and viewpoints by Robert Zubrin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Landing
Nah what we should have is a reality TV show, with nominees being taken from preliminary rounds and then in the finals viewers vote to "vote them off the planet".
;).
If voters vote for a very disliked person, "such an event would unify the world as never before".
It's a bit like Survivor
I suggested this a few years ago, around that time my country (Malaysia) had a stupid astronaut program - which is basically we pay for some silly chap to transfer public money to Russia (and probably some local crony pockets). I proposed that instead we should be allowed to vote a few politicians for one way trip to space. Even if they decline the trip, it would be worth it.
Actually, a fair part of the population on Slashdot these days live in stable relationships and have kids. Me, i've got 3, but I think that's somewhat over-average.
I think it's safe to say that three relationships is a bit above average.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I've got much more than 3 relationships. I meant 3 kids, obviously.
Said the one with UID 667.959 to the one with UID 15.695 ....
There is a very real difference when it comes to risk. I remember a formula 1 racing driver from just after the war saying that it was quite acceptable to have a driver killed in every couple of races, after all they had beaten worse odds in the war and you have to die sometime. Imagine a sport with such odds of death today - nobody would allow it.
Then there are wars where "hundreds" of casualties are seen as terrible. Of course for the individuals they are, but in previous conflicts you could lose thousands in a single battle, and if you made ground it was seen as a success.
Getting humans into space will require not just one way trips and lots of risk, it will likely require genetic modifications, controlled breeding, lots of nuclear power and radiation exposure, stem cell research, and lots of implantable technology. This is not going to happen in societies where a report that cell phones may raise the cancer risk by 50% cause debates lasting months, or where people are willing to sacrifice civil liberties because there is a one in a million chance that a child predator or terrorist might harm them or their family, or where people spend a large fraction of their disposable income on mostly useless health insurance.
So basically, once they overcame all the technical obstacles, they just need to find one depressed, suicidal astronaut to take the big leap to Mars.
Get over yourself mate. Oh and WOOOOOOOOSH!
Whoah! Does that mean you had sex like, three times?? That's like, OMG, dude!! Can I be your friend?
Your head a splode
/. ID's don't have to be integers anymore? When did this happen? Do the numbers have to be rational?
If they don't I call dibs on 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679...
FGD 135
- Some jokes never get old, and
- I was speaking from personal experience.
That's your opinion.I lived by myself for over twenty years once (except for a short span when I had a girlfriend living with me), and it was great (except for a short span when I had a girlfriend living with me).
During the last five years of that time, I was working out of my house, too, so there were time spans when I wouldn't leave the house or see or even talk to anyone for days at a time.
I never got lonely, even though I was alone.
(I had my computer upstairs and a well-equipped workshop in my basement.)
I'm living with my parents now (because they're getting old and they need someone younger around to help out) and we get along great, but when the inevitable occurs, even though I'll miss them, I'll be fine living by myself again (until I get old myself, I guess).Well, I've never had kids (except for a short span when I had a girlfriend living with me, and those were actually her kids, not mine), but that just means that I am doing my part to keep the human population on this planet down, plus I'm not in a financial sinkhole like many people who have kids.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
"Some jokes never get old" should be "Some jokes never get old, except in Soviet Russia, where the old never get some jokes".
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most painful types of cancer - it has a lot of nerves in the surroundings to grow into...
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
I'd take a moonbase over single, or series of missions to Mars. One way or round-trip, does not matter.
Let's send Steve Ballmer.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
(Shatner version, obviously)
She packed my bags last night pre-flight
Zero hour nine a.m.
And I'm gonna be high as a kite by then
I miss the earth so much I miss my wife
It's lonely out in space
On such a timeless flight
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till touch down brings me round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh no no no I'm a rocket man
Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them if you did
And all this science I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man
What would be the point of sending someone to mars who can't return??
He or she would just go crazy in all loneliness and starve to death.
Then, what would we have accomplished? Nothing, we already know how it looks like!
If they can't make a round-trip now, then they'd better wait until they can instead of wasting all that money on killing someone.
It has nothing to with 'shocking' in my opinion, it's just dumb and wasteful on resources that could have been spend in a more useful way.
Hell, a better solution is to get a divorcee to do it. Many of us would love to be millions of miles away from an ex-wife.
/. ID's don't have to be integers anymore? When did this happen? Do the numbers have to be rational? Not to ruin the joke.Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
An old girlfriend of mine is now a grandmother, so yeah, I'd have to agree with you that the /. population is aging.
:)
/. can still attract the young and inexperienced. I hope this doesn't turn into an old fart's forum.
Don't let kids like this get to you that are essentially clueless.
And I got six kids myself... with the oldest entering their teenage years. Ah the joy
Thank goodness though that
"No, Jim, you aren't going to escape her that easily."
The second thought, "Hey, McLane, what's this idea of having my tax money finance your retirement?"
Then I read the article. Lay down some infrastructure first. Maybe send a couple, not just a loner. Maybe send follow-up flights so it isn't just having a cheap control unit for the data collecting hardware. It really is not such a ridiculous idea. When my wife dragged me back to Japan with her, I knew I might not be returning to the States, for instance.
However, one concern I would have, were I (young enough) to be considered, what happens if there's a war down here after I leave? Would (for example) the Chinese give me subtle hints that they would be canceling my budget unless I declared my loyalty to them? (Yeah, I know. That was the plot of a sci-fi novel I read in junior high.)
There are a lot of non-technical problems hiding in this plan.
joudanzuki
bah, doesn't mean he's not an Ebayer, could have just bought that character, some lamer who couldn't be arsed with grinding for XP.
Probably pays a chinese kid to karma whore for him during the night too.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Ok. I'm convinced. I'm tagging the article "tamaguchi"
Ghet yaaa asss to Marzzz
Note to slash re gotchas, use a random fish tank background, not squiggles..
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
you go spew out, windows sucks, it nearly lost my food supply the other day, and linux saved me, the little toy
rover linux box fixed it all. And how you're so glad you brang with you those 8tb of music mp3s and movies with you, hahah
and the riaa cannot touch you hahaah, you could be such a bad ass , what can the do.
In reality, red mars will be there colonized by red china, and they could do it, with 10 new people a year, who cares if they die, GDP/1.3billion makes life cheap, or at least cost a few mill, which is only a few swimming pools of oil, or a truck load of iPods.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
F1rst p0st!
and you have no need for a return rocket.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
It's too bad the federal government doesn't allow for spending referendums the way municipalities do. If they did, I have a feeling this project would go in the ashcan. I'm not against the idea of a human trip to Mars, if someone wants to fund it privately, but I am not interested in footing the bill for it. It's going to be massively, massively expensive compared to sending drones to gather data. To those who make arguments about the relative value of human colonization compared to automated exploration, I propose they make up the difference out of their own pocket.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
...Hillary Clinton to be that one.
You actually ruined the joke for those in the loop... :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
There will be no manned spaceflight past earth orbit through the remainder of this entire century. No one wants to do it. Hell most Americans think NASA's budget is bigger than the Pentagon's. We are never going to Mars, we are never going back to the Moon.
So the cockpit would have one button with a picture of Mars on it!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
this? One of my favorite sci-fi stories. Kid invents anti-gravity drive, builds homemade spaceship, goes to mars, experiences system failure on return trip due to lack of spare for one simple part and gains new respect for NASA engineering, gets rescued by equally genius girlfriend, who neglects to arrange for the return trip at all. I mean, who wants to be rescued?
If there was a human on mars right now the rovers would have had their solar collectors wiped clean and that broken wheel either repaired or removed.
What people obsessed with robotics forget is how limited a robot is compared to a human. Robots are fine when everything runs as expected, but when things fail, humans can adapt.
We are getting to obsessed with safety, I wonder were the real men are, the men who stormed normandy in a hail of machine gun fire, who build wooden rafts and colonized the world.
There are people who got what it takes, the same people that pushed the limits in other areas can do this. We as a society just need to give them the space to do it and stop forcing our own fears onto them. If there is someone willing to go and he/she isn't obviously unfit, then let them. I don't got what it takes, it isn't the no return part, it is the closed space I am sorry to say.
The mission doesn't have to be a pure suicide run after all, sending enough supplies for one man to live years on mars is only a matter of cost. Just send a long string of simple supply runs so that enough will land close by and in tact to survive.
It is a better deal then we many a person has faced in the past.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I was once working in an astrophysical lab where people there said that half of the brain would be burnt by radiations during a flight to Mars. But that would not be not a problem, there would be enough for coming back.
He is not. The job of a senior statesman is waiting for him — and it is a very well paid one:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The article seems mostly focussed on the idea of sending someone with loads of supplies and possibly sending additional people later on - ie a colony rather than a suicide mission.
In any case, isn't the transit time about 6 months, they'd be cutting it a bit fine.
The mission logo could be a crescent Mars with two small moons.
Given the choice of death through glorifying Islam by (1) trying to blow up a humvee in Iraq or (2) going to Mars, I don't think AQ would have trouble finding lots of people who'd prefer to do the Mars thing.
Eric Baird
It is tempting to scale up the Apollo program when looking at Mars. However, the concept of a single multistage rocket is perhaps not the way to go.
If Mars goes around the sun in about 2 earth years, then there is an elliptical orbit that is tangential to mars and earth that will represent the minimum energy routes to Mars. The trip would take somewhere between half an earth year and half a Martian year - let's say about 8-10 months. You could get to Mars faster if you kept your foot to the floor, but that would waste a lot of fuel. So - this route is not far from the optimum route you might take even if you had ion engines, provided our two planets were in the right place.
The craft has got to be big. It has to have room enough to live in for a year or so, with backup. You could strap some enormous chemical rocket that was shipped into space. However, suppose you launched the thing without anyone inside. It can sit in space for years. It could be slowly be raised in orbit using earth-moon tidal forces with ion engine pumping, and a final slinghot. Having escaped the earth-moon system it could slowly accelerate using ion engines or solar sails to get towards Mars. It would take a quick slingshot or aerobrake around Mars and head back towards Earth. If it is in the right orbit, it could get back to Earth without any propulsion, and have enough velocity to get back to Mars' orbit again. Now it is going nice and fast, our passengeers can get on. This time, we are not accelerating the whole living environment, but just the people and their hand luggage to get them to the rendevous, and a conventional rocket might do for that.
Once we have got this far, we then have a big, habitable volume going between Earth's orbit and Mars' orbit. With a bit of fine tuning, we can probably arrange for it to pas Mars and Earth again. This means if we can generate fuel on Mars for a lifting body to get people to rendevous with the big craft, then going back is not only possible, it is almost free, particularly if you are taking a relief crew out.
Do you remember the bit in "The Right Stuff" where someone proposed and volunteered to go to the moon in the hope that they could be resupplied until a vehicle for the return journey could be built? They didn't do it then. I guess we won't do it now. It is interesting to wonder why we would go through huge expense to return one person when we have so many, and the same money would save more lives in other ways. However, we won't do it if we don't have to, and I don't think we do.
The problem is, how do you find and train an individual that will die on schedule?
Tell him it is the will of Allah.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
If it's going to be a one way mission why just Mars? Hell lets start shooting people from our little blue ball to all the other balls out there ...
I seriously doubt they would have that hard a time finding volunteers.
The problem is the ethics of sending the volunteer. Too much of the public would find something inherently 'wrong' with sending a person on a known, one-way mission with no chance of coming back, and that lack of support would pretty much doom the effort.
paintball
Nobody wants to be the project manager who has to explain that your mission failed because you forgot to convert feet into meters.
But that's nothing compared to being the project manager who has to explain that your mission failed because your one astronaut went bat-shit crazy on day 187 and removed his helmet to end it all.
paintball
NASA was planning a one-way trip to Mars and asked for volunteers.
Firstly an engineer turned up. At the interview they explained what the likely outcome was and what he wanted. He replied, "I'll do it for the technical interest - but I want you to give £5 million to the Engineering Council to help get more people into technical education".
Next a doctor arrived. His demand was £10 million for a new space medicine research centre in his name.
Finally a lawyer arrived. He asked for £15 million but did not specify a 'good cause'.
"Why 15 million?" asked the NASA interviewer.
"Well, it's £5 million for you, £5 million for me and we'll send the engineer!".
Can he get to Mars in six months? You need somebody who's got a terminal illness but will survive long enough to get there--bit tricky, that.
Nah. Only 3l1t3 sex-gods need apply. *grin* Actually, 2 of the kids are twins, so you know, we actually needed to do that sex-thing only twice.
Not in the least. They're not even clueless, it's just that the population of slashdot, like nerds in general age. For obvious reasons there's not many 60-year-old CompSci nerds. There -will- be a few decades from now though.
Parse error:
If you failed to notice the upwards trend in participation in children-related discussions here on Slashdot, and thus continued to assume that the population here is pretty much all young, sexually frustrated and single, then *THAT* is your loss.
I never said it's any kind of loss to choose to have, or not have, children. Obviously everyone will choose what's rigth for them. The only ones at a loss are those who would like children but can't, and those who'd prefer to be without children but are careless and nevertheless get them.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Great read...one of my favorites when younger.
So, after we send more and more people over the course of a few decades, the colony becomes self-sufficient, declares independence, and establishes trade relations with Earth. Then, within 100 years, we could be at war! Just think what it will do for the defense budget. The Pentagon better get on it right away!
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
The trip to Mars or any other solar system body can easily be achieved if a spaceship is built with the following properties:
1) it uses rotation to simulate gravity.
2) it's big enough to host smaller craft that can visit a planetary body. The spaceship itself does not need to land.
3) it uses nuclear power both for its systems and for propulsion.
4) contains enough space to host a variety of human activities.
If such a thing existed, going to Mars would be very easy. It could take 1 year, but the spaceship would be comfortable and since gravity would be simulated, the astronauts would not have such a hard time. The cost of designing and building such a ship would be big, but not bigger than the cost of one year's money spent on military. Of course, it could be much easier to do if major countries co-operated on it.
The only reason people say "it can't be done" is that no one dares raise the finger against all those people that profit from war.
So... no one can tolerate to be around you is what I'm gathering.
Dude, what about if you went there and your internet connection BROKE? That means NO MORE INTERNET EVER!
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Heh... only people that haven't had sex say its overrated. ;-)
We'll strip-mine the other planets later.
Say, think of how fast we'll put a man on Mars if somebody finds *oil* there?
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Actually, he had triplets.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
George Herbert first suggested this about 12 years ago, back when I was reading sci.space.policy. The linked article is too slashdotted for me to tell whether it cites Herbert, but pretty much everything in this thread was discussed 12 years ago on Usenet. Including the wisecracks.
Herbert's OneWay paper:
http://www.retro.com/employees/gherbert/Space/OneWay/1way.paper.5.txt
A very big chunk of the payload for a manned Mars flight would be fuel and life-support equipment for the astronaut(s). It may indeed be impractical to send enough of both for a round trip. But we don't have to. We could send *umanned* supply missions ahead of the manned flight to stockpile fuel in Mars orbit. Then when the manned flight arrives, it could refuel for the return trip.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Reminds me of a friend from college with a 10.000 maniacs t-shirt. He didn't appreciate my joke telling him that "Wow, that is a VERY precise quantity of maniacs you have there..."
I laughed tho.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Here's two.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Quick, somebody call Patrick Swayze!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335210,00.html/
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Anybody who hasn't yet red the Red Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson, you probably should. That trilogy really defines some of the major issues of Mars colonization. Fear the transnationals!
James E. Gunn's 1955 story, "The Cave of Night," concerns an astronaut whose retrorockets fail, and for some reason I forget is left with the ability to transmit but not receive radio. The space program only had money to build the single ship. He's marooned in orbit, with oxygen that can be stretched only for a few weeks. He gives a dramatic running commentary on what he can see, his state of mind, and his philosophical acceptance of impending death.
In one dramatic moment, the citizens of Kansas City set up a plan and turn all their lights off and on at the same time, just as he is passing over, as a signal so that he knows they can hear him... a moment that was later duplicated in real life when the citizens of Perth flashed their lights for John Glenn (who was in no trouble).
Spurred by the astronaut's plight, the government initiates crash program to build a rescue ship, which is completed, launched, and arrives just slightly too late, and gives a moving account of their decision to leave his dead body in space, where he wanted to be, staring at the stars for eternity.
One of the things that people tend to forget is the whole point of James E. Gunn's story. The narrator personally knew the astronaut. After the astronaut's supposed death, the narrator encounters a man on the street and is certain that he recognizes him as the astronaut. The man on the street denies it of course, but the narrator is left wondering, and, we sense, believing, that the whole thing was a hoax.
The government did not have enough money for even a single manned launch, so they launched a small satellite with a tape recording, knowing that the dramatic plight of the marooned astronaut would give them a moment of spare-no-expense public support, giving them the opportunity, under the guise of a rescue mission, for building the real thing.
Not that am a conspiracy theorist, or that I think such a hoax could have been successfully brought off then... or now... but...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"and such an event would unify the world as never before"
Osama: "My brothers. A wonderful thing has happened! The Americans, the British, Israel, and the rest of the world is preparing to launch a mission to Mars! Mars is one of Alla's creations! Alla be praised as we lay down our arms and send some of our brothers to assist in this glorious endeavor!"
Is this the kind of unity you have in mind? Do you seriously think this is going to happen? Let's face it even Hillary, Obama, and many other politicians in this country would be beating down the door to CNN to either talk about what a waste of money it is or what a wonderful thing it is depending on what position their opponent takes.
I couldn't RTFA because the server is bogged down, but this brings to mind a plan I saw discussed in a documentary somewhere (real reliable source, huh?).
Someone had designed plans to send a fueling station to mars which would generate the appropriate fuel from the gases in the Martian atmosphere. This cut down on the costs significantly, but the plans were ultimately ignored by NASA (maybe because of the number of corners cut) even though they were affordable by todays standards.
Maybe someone else has heard about this too...
I can think of a few people that I wouldn't mind sending there, just to get them off this planet,... Plus, if we sell the idea to them the right way, most of the people involved are dumb enough that they'd actually enjoy the trip! ;-)
9/10 of the work is caching the supplies you need so you don't have to carry them in the dash to you goal (and the more desperate dash back to safety).
So you don't carry the fuel and other supplies you need to get back down to the surface; you leave it in orbit; in fact you don't leave Earth until you know you have the return vessel and everything else you'll need safely parked in Mars orbit. The habitat, supplies, surface vehicles and other equipment are landed and robotically prepared before the crew lands, so they won't be any question of whether they can survive on the surface for the mission duration. When the crew returns to orbit, they leave everything behind except maybe a few hundred kg of must have stuff. If you want more stuff, fine, but if complicates the return trip then you launch it separately.
Personally, I'm not an advocate of a manned Mars mission. But if we want to do it, the main obstacles are political and economic; while physics complicates these problems, it's not in this case an insurmountable barrier. An example of a situation where phsyics is a barrier is extracting certain petroleum deoposits where it takes more energy to get at them than they yield. That makes going after them pointless.
The things we'd go to Mars for aren't like that. Things like national prestige, or knowledge, have no mass. So it's purely a matter of whether the cost and time needed to stage the supplies the crew would need, plus the cost of moving the crew there and back safely, is worth whatever it is we hope to gain. It doesn't make the question easy, but it certainly seems technically feasible to do it in this century if we want to badly enough.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0058530/ Seriously, though, I think a one way trip is a great idea. Crew of about 6 and the supplies to create a self sustaining colony, rather than a stupid return trip. Get the colony established and the next explorers can bring a return stage for the first crew, about like the Space Station is doing now with rotating crews. If you build a colony the landing stage can be your backup habitat if an emergency arises.
OK, in the long run, for purposes of exploration, yes perhaps a manned mission is reasonable. But in the short to mid term, it just seems pointless. There is still PLENTY of work for robots to do on Mars. Why not spend another 20 to 50 years on unmanned missions, which will naturally become ever more capable?
In the mean time the Moon is a far better target for manned operations. It has a significantly LESS hostile environment (no atmosphere makes things a lot easier, 1/100th bar of CO2 is not doing anyone any good). The risks and costs are very much smaller, and there is a huge amount of science we can do. Not only that but much of the knowledge gained in manned operations on the Moon will be generally applicable to manned operations anywhere in the Solar System, including Mars. It may actually be CHEAPER in the long run to go back to the Moon first. Not only that but there are geopolitical reasons for establishing a presence on the Moon which may well virtually mandate going to the Moon anyway, so why not do it first?
Furthermore there are, albeit tenuous, arguments for significant economic returns from Manned operations on the Moon. There are no such arguments re Mars and never will be. All a manned Mars expedition will accomplish is burning 100's of billions of $ on a program which will generate a PR event that, judging from our experiences with Apollo, will last 6 months, then the public will get bored with it, and the program will wither. No doubt some interesting science and engineering will come out of it, but it won't be worth the cost (100 billion $ easily represents 20-50 unmanned missions). Most of the same benefits in the mid to long term will also result from Lunar operations. There will be plenty of scientific benefits and the engineering knowledge gained will be essentially the same. On the other hand the risks and costs will be MUCH lower, maybe by an order of magnitude. Naturally we'll probably actually spend similar amounts on either program, but we'll get a lot more for those bucks on the Moon.
Plus, as some NASA commentators have pointed out, the hardware required to go back to the Moon will be sufficient in general for accomplishing other valuable Manned missions, such as a near-Earth asteroid mission, or any other mission we can think of involving human spaceflight in the vicinity of Earth.
Finally there is at least one direct argument for NOT setting foot on Mars. It will complicate the search for life there. No manned mission can ever be guaranteed not to result in some biological contamination of the Martian environment. Realistically it may not be much of a problem, but ANY signs of life discovered on Mars from that point forward will have to be evaluated in order to determine whether or not they resulted from contamination, however remote the possibility. Which just complicates that whole equation considerably. So it may even be inadvisable at this time to set foot on Mars.
Forget Mars. It is a 'bridge too far' at this point. Give it 50 years. Maybe by then we'll have the type of spacecraft that are required for serious manned exploration of deep space, like say nuclear fusion powered VASIMER type rockets which can ferry back and forth multiple times with very large payloads and follow fast transfer orbits when carrying human crews. At that point the costs will be reduced vastly and it will make a lot more sense to go there. In 50 years it may be cheaper to go to Mars than it is to go to the Moon now, and in the mean time we can direct our limited funds to more sensible projects.
Mars certainly is an emotionally compelling target, but it simply isn't a logical goal for manned spaceflight at this time, and logic trumps emotion. A logically sound space program is a good space program. One based on ill advised emotional arguments is not.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
"The current American astronauts are picked for things such as their speaking ability and social skills" I'd like to see some attribution but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Many of the reasons others in this thread are giving for going are primarily social goals eg. "to be in the history books". I'd go to do the work.
Glorious, that is.
A good number of them had a profit motive when undertaking their journeys. Columbus might have been the intrepid explorer, but he had every intention of returning and his financial backers fully expected him to return either carrying the plunder of new colonies or with a shorter trade route for the highly-taxed trade with the orient.
More to the point, though, is that the cost and complexity of modern extra-planetary exploration by humans is ridiculously higher (in proportion) than it was back then. Louis and Clark bought some horses, boats, and rifles and set out. Amundson hired a ship, bought some dogs, and off he went. Drake thought he would plunder the Spanish in the ships given him by the queen.
I'm not sure how accurate it is to compare these expeditions to something funded by the public at NASA prices.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Not just any AI though - an AI with really nice jugs
which is totally what she said
"No, not if technology is advances enough to have Niven-style autodocs." It would be possible if we were at that point where we had Autodocs that the state of the art would be good enough for a return trip; but I see your point. We probably have enough remote diagnostic sensing capability when matched with a team of doctors Houston-side that a device designed to automatically dispense medicine while the user was sleeping could be placed in ships manifest. It might be light and simple enough to replace a tradition medical case. Staying healthy will be a challenge. Limited contact might not bode well for a single human many mile removed for society. I do enjoy me solitary trips to the Big Bend of Texas; but I cannot imagine doing it "permanently" At least the desert animals would keep me company. Fat chance of sharing a meal with a Fox on Mars..
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
Hell, if I had something like that, I'd probably volunteer. If you think pancreatic cancer doesn't hurt much, you're sadly misinformed.
I also don't see much point in sending someone who's dying on a trip to "colonize" another planet. At least send one or two healthy people who will be able to effectively return some sort of information once they arrive.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Please read more into what someone is implying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_(punctuation)#In_numerals
In many part of the world, periods are used where we in the US would often use a comma.
I am d3matt
A free-return trajectory will get you to Mars in about six months. And that's the most likely one to be used, since it means that he comes back here if something goes wrong on the way and he can't actually go to Mars.
As to the cancer-patient concept. Silly idea. But I have cancer, and I'd be on my way to Cape Canaveral like a shot if I were offered the chance.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Send me.. I'll go even if it's to crash right into the planet. Mankind needs to quit being pussies.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
If we wait until we have fusion (big if), we won't have to send so many supplies. Just send the fusion plant beforehand and it could generate air and water while the volunteer is on the way.
Still, I hate the time and energy so many spend on going to Mars. It's a dead end. It's just a big, cold, desert at the bottom of a gravity well. Landing a man on the Moon was a giant leap, landing one on Mars is a giant waste.
Maybe I've just read too many Sam Gunn stories.
Do what any good geek would do: Make an AI.
How does geek would do: make an AI make you feel?
"Get your ass to Mars"
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
So, send another one. With a woman.
"So, hey babe, you said MAYBE... IF i was the only guy on the planet... eh, eh!"
WH. . .HH. . .OOOOOSH. dude.
If I still had mod points today, they would be yours.
http://www.mhall119.com
I have moderator points but don't know what to use on you; There is no "-1 Clue Brick" rating.
lameness filter made me type this sentence, lowercase lowercase lowercase lowercase lowercase
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
We know from the airline industry that one way travel is inherently more expensive than round trip. So in order to save the taxpayers money I think we should opt for round trip. -G
Above all, the goal should be to reach Mars, nothing elese should matter.
I have been following Race to the Moon 2.0 and what stumps is that US is developing new technologies. We got to the moon with an electric soup can, for Christ's sake. 20 years and trillions of dollars is about profit, not progress - not results. If existing technology works, we should reuse it and only re-engineer the functions that failed or severely underperformed.
If we are to get to Mars it should not be a government project, it should be a private Blackwarter-type team of private companies who are not afraid to break finger nails and loose an occasional life.
if i had mod points i would've rewarded you...
Even if what you said was true, you could always just deliver everything in separate trips. Why carry all the equipment and fuel there with the humans? Spend a couple of years tossing cargo ships toward mars. By the time we actually send humans there should be gobs of equipment there already.
Cow Cube
> But Jim McLane's proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to
> Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person.
Two people. The astronaut and Rosie.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
My guess (my hope) is that by the time that I am 80 or so, robotics (and/or nanotechnology and/or AI) will have advanced to the point where I won't need humans to take care of me.
And if I'm the only human on Mars, I would expect to have all of that space-age technology available to me.
In addition, at 1/3rd of Earth's gravity, I will be less likely to injure myself if I fall, and the lower gravity will help in other ways, too.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
There is nothing inspirational in going for another Moon shot or a Mars shot, for the simple reason that it is doable with existing technology. Rocketry and manned spacecraft were inspirational precisely because none of it had been done before. So, if NASA is to be true to the old spirit, it should drop all chemical rocket based projects and focus on "to-pluto-and-back-in-a-month". That's what's true conquest of the solar system. Something like Fusion Orion would be best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus
Err... don't take offense, but viagra is a lot cheaper.
Your ad could be here!
I hold issue with your terminology and request a clarification. Are you asserting that fertility declines in those with a high standard of living, or that birth rates decline in those with a high standard of living? I could agree with the latter but I would argue against the former.
Some factors that would make the birth rate decline make sense:
- Higher standard of living means you aren't working a farm to sustain your family so you don't need more child labor to help out
- Higher standard of living means better health care which means more of your progeny survive to adulthood and you don't need to replace them on a regular basis.
- Higher standard of living also means better health care for you which means you're in no hurry to start making babies for fear of dying before you get a chance.
- Higher standard of living provides you more time to pursue your career and hobbies both due to the aforementioned health care, as well as not having to work 16 hours a day to earn a living wage. This means however that there is less time to dedicate to a family. A quick google search confirms that we're waiting longer to procreate, at least in Canada, on average.
I can't think of anything that would make fertility decline, however.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Yes they can even be hexadecimal!
Witness mine!
- Ecsad Essemal
The Hexadecimal TV-REMOTE!
I've worked with more than a few individuals who were pretty dang good programmers who are now in the 60+ year old category. Admittedly they didn't get Computer Science degrees at the time, as such a degree was still quite rare. But it isn't completely unheard of for the term "retired computer programmer" to exist for something more than a dot com millionaire.
Who do you think wrote the software that sent the astronauts to the Moon?
But I admit, the number of CompSci nerds that cut their teeth on personal computers is going to be hitting retirement age here in the next decade or so... and that is going to be something quite interesting.
There's a parasite from Mars discovering about humans and reporting all the data to Mars and mrthyself.com Don't take my word for it...
He doesn't dupe his posts, tho. Leaves that to the editors.
What the heck is he smoking?!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Polynesians did it through polygamy, and from many standpoints, polygamy amoung early colonists makes the most sense too. Except for all the purses and shoes storage.
See, this is why religion should be kept out of the classroom. Even this advanced scientist thinks one man and one woman can populate a planet. Apparently he doesn't know much about viability in genetic diversity.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
How is this flamebait? This is the funniest thing I've read on slashdot in a long time!
#1) Adjusted for inflation the NASA budget is not significantly different from the moon-visit era. Getting to Mars, the Moon, etc is more a problem of social engineering than it is technical. BTW, our current hot-air-bag-in-chief has claimed this as a priority but actually done jack squat in terms of actual leadership.
#2) Nobody has to die, and it isn't even particularly risky. Also, the first trip to Mars can, at the same time, be the first colonization of Mars. Once again automation comes to the rescue.
Step 1: Send an unmanned craft to Mars, with a return vehicle as it's payload. Land it on the surface, and verify that the return vehicle is launch-capable. At the same time the launch vehicle is also a habitation unit. Risk to human life: 0.
Step 2: Send the *same* unmanned craft + return vehicle to Mars, this time with people on board. Land it on the surface. If *this* return vehicle didn't break, that is great, leave it there. If it did, there is still a way home because the other one works. If they both work, even better -- leave one behind as a backup for the *next* crew.
Meanwhile, the launchers start accumulating on the surface and form the a growing permanent base of operations on Mars.
FYI, I forget who's idea this was, but it isn't mine.
Sure, there's been programmers for perhaps 50 years.
But there was very few until the 80ies. Given that most people have a career that is 35 years long or more, this means that there are very few people who have worked as programmers for their eintire career, and which are now retired.
I never said they don't exist. It's just that they are very very few, compared to what it will look like when the dot-com generation retires. If we assume the typical dot-com programmer is someone who was 25 in year 2000, then he'll be 60 in 2035.
I don't think you understand the state of the industry. Widespread employment of software developers goes back to the 1960's, with some of first programmers (like Grace Hooper) got their start in the 1940's. That is nearly 70 years ago. Ada Lovelace wrote her software back in the 1880's. Yes, the 19th Century, not even the 20th.
For crying out loud, there were large groups of programmers getting retired in the year 2000.
I think you don't take credit for the vast amount of software that was written well before you were born. And no, there weren't "very few programmers until the 1980's". Most of them, however, were writing stuffy business application software or code for missile guidance systems, and not the hot sexy new areas like web site design. Who do you think wrote payroll accounting software or the stuff that did your school class schedule registration? Or were you one of the generation that had to stand in lines while class schedules were compiled by hand by your guidance counselor, with that registration being a several day process?
It wasn't until the advent of the personal computer that small businesses started to use computers in large quantities. However, there wasn't a huge spike in terms of the growth of the number of programming jobs in the 1980s... it was a continuation of a trend for computers becoming more common in society for quite some time, nor was even the process of miniaturization of computer components started by people like Steve Jobs or Nolan Bushnell.
(Thank you for using the word "If", though; it annoys the hell out of me when people appear to presume to know what I think or believe.)
For the record, I am 53 years old, and, although I know that most Slashdotters are younger than that, when I picture them (which isn't often), I picture them as being approximately my own age when reading/typing (even though I know that that's not true).
I also picture them as single (since I am single), although I know that many of them are married, divorced, etc.
I also picture them as heterosexual American males (or British, if I see spellings like "colour" or words like "lorry"), although I know that many are not heterosexual, American, or male.
I also picture them as being similar to me in many other ways that many or most of them probably aren't, because that is just normal human behavior.
Now, if I see things like "7734" spelling (or whatever it is they use for "elite"), or people who use phrases like "for all intensive purposes", "you've got another thing coming", etc., or people who don't seem to know the difference between "their" and "they're", etc., then I picture them as being younger (as young as High School).
Also, under no circumstances (that I can recall) have I ever pictured a Slashdotter as living in his Mom's basement, but I may, at some point in the future, make some joke about that, as well.
Just giving you advance warning, so that, when that time comes, you don't have to waste your time pointing out how that joke is getting old as well.
Or the one about Natalie Portman and hot grits.
And so forth.
You see, I, for one, do not welcome our new joke-criticizing overlords.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
The title of the parent post was supposed to be "Re:Observational Failings & Continuing Assumptions" (which hits the 50-character title limit), not "Re:Observational Failings & Continuing Assumpt".
That's the way that it appeared when I clicked the "Preview" button.
My guess is that it re-truncated the title to 50 characters when it changed "&" to "&".
It should have done the same thing in the preview, though.
Looks like a bug in the code.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Nah, I don't even think we disagree, you just misunderstand me. I never questioned that there where programmers starting from the 40ies forward (earlier than that it gets fuzzy, people have worked on algorithms for MILLENIA, but I don't think that's quite comparable aslong as there existed no machine capable of carrying out a programmed algorithm)
It's just that my focus is different. Yes there was "widespread" programming in the 60ies. But it was still a tiny TINY drop in the bucket compared to current levels. There *was* programmers in the 60ies, but I'm thinking there are a hundred programmers today for every single one back then.
You're probably rigth though, that programming-jobs have risen steadily if we ignore short-term wild fluctuations like the dot.com bubble.