Slashdot Mirror


Mars One Has 78,000 Applicants

An anonymous reader writes "Mars One reports that 78,000 people have volunteered for a one-way ticket to Mars. A quick calculation shows that this means people lined up coast-to-coast in a line with only 40cm per person! (As Robert Zubrin already predicted). If you want, you can still go and sign up (or sign up your worst enemy). Or you can just look at some videos of the would-be travelers."

355 comments

  1. Third-party nominations? by dtmos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can think of several people that I would like to volunteer for a one-way ticket to Mars. Were these volunteers self-nominated, or did Mars One accept third-party nominations?

    1. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know my ex-husband too and his mistress?

    2. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      What use would a third-party nomination be? It would essentially be volunteering someone to be exiled from Earth forever. The right to banish someone from Earth forever is not a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution.

    3. Re:Third-party nominations? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You obviously are wasting your energy on people who should no longer matter to you. Suggestion, best revenge is to stop caring, and move on. Or, think of it this way, your "ex" still has power over you, do you want that?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Third-party nominations? by Princeofcups · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can think of several people that I would like to volunteer for a one-way ticket to Mars. Were these volunteers self-nominated, or did Mars One accept third-party nominations?

      More importantly, how many responders are serious? Would they really climb into a craft to go to mars? I'd wager around, let's see, none.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    5. Re:Third-party nominations? by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      Ooooh! I like that. I must remember it for future use.

    6. Re:Third-party nominations? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will wager you are wrong.
      Not all 78,000 will, but I bet you could find at least 100 that would. Being first to mars, or among the first will be a huge draw.

    7. Re:Third-party nominations? by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wasn't aware the Earth had a Constitution.

    8. Re:Third-party nominations? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect that most of the people who are applying are planning to take advantage of being on a reality tv show. Everything but the last round is going to happen on Earth, so the vast majority of the applicants know that they will never make it to Mars and simply want to take advantage of whatever fame and fortune come with being on the Mars One tv show over the next few years, which could be considerable.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    9. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we guarantee an English/Metric unit conversion error?

    10. Re:Third-party nominations? by Loether · · Score: 1

      First to mars or last, I'd still love to go. I love travel and it's been a dream of mine for as long as I can remember to go to space. I can't think of a more exciting place to travel than Mars. Even if I was not the first person to set foot on Mars. Just for the ability to see Earth from orbit, I'd go all the way to Mars. After seeing Earth from orbit, the rest is just gravy. Sure you might never make it back, but most people never have a chance to complete a lifelong crazy dream. Sign me up! So long cruel world.

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
    11. Re:Third-party nominations? by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The opposite of Love is not Hate, but Indifference.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:Third-party nominations? by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      On an only slightly related note, this article missed a huge chance to use one of the favorite words of geeks everywhere: "archenemy".

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    13. Re:Third-party nominations? by c · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can think of several people that I would like to volunteer for a one-way ticket to Mars.

      I'd pledge $5 to the "Send Snooki Home" kickstarter...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    14. Re:Third-party nominations? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I can think of several people that I would like to volunteer for a one-way ticket to Mars. Were these volunteers self-nominated, or did Mars One accept third-party nominations?

      People generally fill out their own applications and there's a fee (I think, $38 US via PayPal).

      And... you all do know that an applicant does not *have* to go if chosen, right?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    15. Re:Third-party nominations? by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

      Better revenge: move to Mars, destroy the Earth.

      Way more satisfying.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    16. Re:Third-party nominations? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Send Phillip Fry. I'm getting sick of that guy and all his damned accomplishments.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    17. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Sure you might never make it back,

      I think you fail to comprehend the meaning of "one-way ticket".

    18. Re:Third-party nominations? by Infernal+Device · · Score: 2

      I considered it.

      I won't pretend it's for mankind or science or anything like that - I'd be doing it because people would remember my name for having done something somewhat insane, with few harmful side-effects. That mankind would benefit or science would benefit is great, but it would be a side-effect.

      Because I could carve a plaque that said "I was here first, bitch. Suck on that, you second-place losers." I would do my damndedst to ensure that I was remembered not only as the First Man On Mars, but also biggest, most insufferable d-bag at the same time.

      But they'd remember my name.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    19. Re:Third-party nominations? by Kevoco · · Score: 0

      Coulter / Limbaugh, FTW!

    20. Re:Third-party nominations? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      They're trying.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

    22. Re:Third-party nominations? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Sure you might never make it back

      No, you aren't going to make it back. One way. The End. Full Stop.

      Of course, nobody's going in the first place so you're still stuck with the rest of us.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    23. Re:Third-party nominations? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      With that attitude, I suspect the end of your journey would be about 5 minutes after the first airlock test.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 535 people I would like to sign up. The mostly live in and around Washington, DC.

    25. Re:Third-party nominations? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      With an earth-shattering kaboom.

    26. Re:Third-party nominations? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Make sure you think of some good first words on mars then. Something to rival 'one small step.'

      I'd keep it simple: "First!"

    27. Re:Third-party nominations? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Let's see... I think we should volunteer the following people

      * Head of the MPAA
      * Head of the RIAA
      * Any "Senators from Disney"
      * Prenda Law (on second thought, no... they're too entertaining)
      * Mayor Bloomberg
      * Anyone still affiliated with SCOXQ (or unXis or whatever they're called now)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    28. Re:Third-party nominations? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      More likely, be the first to die on a way to Mars.

      And then we'll run out of oil and there will be no "firsts".

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    29. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Frist setp!!"

    30. Re:Third-party nominations? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Just do not forget the Q-36 Space Modulator.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    31. Re:Third-party nominations? by Infernal+Device · · Score: 2

      I would be a perfect gentleman to my shipmates and go above and beyond the call of duty, when possible, in whatever my job was.

      But I'd be the first Total D-Bag on Mars to the rest of Humanity.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    32. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now where did I put that darn Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator?

    33. Re:Third-party nominations? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      You are most likely right. I looked through some of the applications and very few of them actually give any reasons *why* they want to do that or look like people who would give up their Earth life for that.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    34. Re: Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who or what is Snookie?

    35. Re:Third-party nominations? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      His line of reasoning is actually not that much different then that displayed by the test pilots in the movie "The right stuff".

    36. Re: Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we send the entire NRA to Mars and then nuke Mars? pretty please?

    37. Re:Third-party nominations? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I can think of several people that I would like to volunteer for a one-way ticket to Mars. Were these volunteers self-nominated, or did Mars One accept third-party nominations?

      More importantly, how many responders are serious? Would they really climb into a craft to go to mars? I'd wager around, let's see, none.

      Think about how many people have no family left, have been left penniless due to financial problems, maybe even under so much debt they'll never get out... have no retirement left... Why the heck wouldn't they go? They have no hope of what they would consider a meaningful or successful life here... why not try mars?

    38. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neurologically speaking, revenge actually produces a pleasant chemical payoff when achieved.

      Unfortunately, however, if you can't achieve it right away and remain in a vengeful state of mind for a long time, THOSE chemicals wear out your organs.

    39. Re:Third-party nominations? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Then what's the opposite of Hate?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    40. Re:Third-party nominations? by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      I think that will probably be the biggest challenge to selecting those who they actually invest in training. Even with the fact that they will have a backup crew, I think the chances of one of them backing out at the last minute is probably the biggest risk.

    41. Re:Third-party nominations? by AaronLS · · Score: 2

      Better yet, spend some time driving around in the buggy until you've written out in the sand "First Post!" large enough to be visible from satellite.

    42. Re: Third-party nominations? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 2

      Who or what is Snookie?

      That is something best left unanswered. Count yourself fortunate that you do not know.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    43. Re:Third-party nominations? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Whoever sets foot there first will probably just whip out his/her Apple iPhone 9(TM) with 32GB of storage, iTunes Store and Siri HD, only on Sprint Mars(TM), and Tweet "Frost piss from Mars LOL! #marsone"...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong. I really hate this analogy. The opposite of 2 is not 0, it's -2.

      I've had this argument with both my therapist and parenting counselor as part of my divorce. I realized what their intent is, which is to have no emotional attachment either positive or negative to my ex. I'd like to be there but have to work at it.

      That said, I still hate this analogy whenever I hear it. There are better ways of communicating it.

    45. Re:Third-party nominations? by invid · · Score: 2

      Neurologically speaking, revenge actually produces a pleasant chemical payoff when achieved.

      A pleasant chemical payoff is best served cold.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    46. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    47. Re:Third-party nominations? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      Almost all of the applications that I have looked at seem to be from people with no useful skills (at least not ones that will be useful on Mars), little interest in going to Mars beyond stock statements like "it would be awesome" or "I want to be an astronaut", and very little skill in promoting themselves. The number of spelling errors in applicants from people in English-speaking countries is astounding. The quality of many of the videos is dismal. If these people really want to survive on Mars they need to demonstrate a lot more attention to detail than they did on their public applications.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    48. Re:Third-party nominations? by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      Probably not a lot of people signing other people, as the registration is $38.00. 78,000+ applications? Do the math.

      This should be exposed for what it is, a quick marketing and money grab.

      Slashdot is just a slave to their scheme by publicizing it's lies.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    49. Re:Third-party nominations? by G-forze · · Score: 2

      No, you aren't going to make it back. One way. The End. Full Stop.

      You don't know that. If you stay, say, 30 years on Mars, they land more people and more equipment as the years go by, more and more frequently as the tech develops and matures. One day a return trip would certainly be available. It might not be cheap (in the beginning), but hey, if you have been working on Mars for 30 years, you might be able to afford it. If nothing else, your fame from being among the first martian explorers might land you a nice advertisement gig to pay for the trip home.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    50. Re: Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A snickers bar once Chewbacca is finished with it.

    51. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no, love and hate are separated by a thin line on the same side of the coin, and on the other side you have indifference.

      Both love and hate are strong feelings. Indifference is no feeling.

    52. Re:Third-party nominations? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Then what's the opposite of Hate?

      Must be difference, I'm thinking.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    53. Re:Third-party nominations? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Of course, nobody's going in the first place so you're still stuck with the rest of us.

      My thought exactly - this is a publicity stunt for another reality show.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    54. Re:Third-party nominations? by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      But it is much easier to be indifferent toward someone if they are on Mars with no possibility of return. :-)

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    55. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure, i would do it, with the understanding it is truly a "one-way ticket" and that my remaining lifespan would likely be measured in "days" instead of "years".

      if your dream isn't worth dieing for, then you aren't dreaming very big.

    56. Re:Third-party nominations? by ewibble · · Score: 1

      It is a fairly accurate analogy, they are very similar emotions biologically:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-prove-it-really-is-a-thin-line-between-love-and-hate-976901.html

      Think about it, who are the people you hate the most, they are the ones that you loved and have hurt you. People you who you don't care about and never did are rarely people you end up hating.

      In particular sense indifference can be thought of as the opposite of both. I.e. strong emotion vs weak emotion. You can of course think of it as positive vs negative emotion, its a matter of perspective.

      On a side point I think it is best to let hate go, it tends to hurt you much more than the person you hate, you end up using your emotional energy on someone that should not be important at all.

    57. Re:Third-party nominations? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Not worth it. Such a thing on the moon would endure for possibly millions of years, until the next time a meteor hit. On mars? Until the next dust storm, or a few weeks of thin-aired wind.

      You could, though, throw a piece of plastic packaging material out the airlock. I can think of no more appropriate way to declare 'humans are here, this is our planet now.'

    58. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know my ex-husband too and his mistress?

      This is why i divorced you...

    59. Re:Third-party nominations? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      "Suck it Armstrong! No, not Neil. I meant Lance."

    60. Re:Third-party nominations? by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      It says in the article that the trip is intended to be one-way, so if you volunteer it is with the expectation that you will not return. Sure, as you point out it may work out differently, but going in that is not the expectation.

    61. Re:Third-party nominations? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Then what's the opposite of Hate?

      Must be difference, I'm thinking.

      lol.. you know, I almost put that in my reply

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    62. Re:Third-party nominations? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Make sure you think of some good first words on mars then. Something to rival 'one small step.'

      I'd keep it simple: "First!"

      "Today, Mars; Tomorrow, Uranus!"

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    63. Re:Third-party nominations? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps, "Now, where did I pack that Illudium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator?"

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    64. Re:Third-party nominations? by speederaser · · Score: 1

      You could, though, throw a piece of plastic packaging material out the airlock. I can think of no more appropriate way to declare 'humans are here, this is our planet now.'

      That's so 50 years ago.

      From the link:

      Man's first act on the moon was to throw trash on it - Armstrong discarded a duffle bag with some junk in it.

    65. Re:Third-party nominations? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Then what's the opposite of Hate?

      Also indifference. Love and hate are very closely related.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    66. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Living well is the best revenge"? As Niles said on Frasier, "It's a wonderful expression. I just don't know how true it is. You don't see it turning up in a lot of opera plots. 'Ludwig, maddened by the poisoning of his entire family, wreaks vengeance on Gunther in the third act by living well! Whereupon Woton, upon discovering his deception, wreaks vengeance on Gunther in the third act again by living even better than the Duke!'"

    67. Re:Third-party nominations? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Think about it, who are the people you hate the most, they are the ones that you loved and have hurt you.

      The the only people I've hated were bullies. I didn't ever love them.

      In particular sense indifference can be thought of as the opposite of both.

      Yes, and the opposite of heavy isn't light its medium, and the opposite of light isn't dark its twilight. The opposite of fast isn't slow its moderate. The opposite of smart isn't dumb its its average.

      Give me a break.

      I.e. strong emotion vs weak emotion.

      Well, see there's the problem. According to your line of reasoning, strong and weak emotions aren't opposites at all. So love and indifference aren't opposites at all.

      You see because by this line of reasoning the opposite of something in any way remarkable of characteristic is something that is wholly unremarkable. Thus strong is of remarkable strength, while weak is a remarkable lack of strength... and the opposite of both would be some unremarkable middle range of strength.

      Love is a remarkably strong feeling, indifference is the equally remarkable complete and utter lack of any feeling at all.

      So the opposite of love must be thinking they are "kind of nice".

      And that's stupid. :)

      On a side point I think it is best to let hate go, it tends to hurt you much more than the person you hate, you end up using your emotional energy on someone that should not be important at all.

      Or you could let it fester and drive your actions. There's no limit to what you can do with the power of hate. And its pretty productive really, as long as you don't let it get the better of you... then next thing you know you've killed a bunch of younglings and wearing a robot suit.

      But then people do really stupid things for love too.

      And total indifference? That sounds downright sociopathic.

      I guess just let go around thinking everyone around you is "kind of nice" and all will be "kind of ok".

    68. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Kuato!!!"

      "You son of a bitch!"

    69. Re:Third-party nominations? by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      No, the 'first post' is the thing that goes in the ground, you know, with the flag on it.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    70. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pollute Mars, destroy Mars. Move back to Earth.

    71. Re:Third-party nominations? by able1234au · · Score: 1

      Huh? Who cares...

        (joke!)

    72. Re:Third-party nominations? by able1234au · · Score: 1

      I don't love you.

      I don't hate you.

      But i dont think you are kind of nice...

    73. Re:Third-party nominations? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      How about we send everyone on the list? Have you seen those videos? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    74. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you'd have trouble tattooing "Indifference" on the other fist.

    75. Re:Third-party nominations? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      But i dont think you are kind of nice...

      *I* don't like you either. You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems. :p

    76. Re:Third-party nominations? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      No, the opposite of Love is Fear.

    77. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes love & I've got some bad news for you: she's better lookin than you & he deserved better, so there you have it. ;-p [EG]

    78. Re:Third-party nominations? by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      Or, your parents might have gotten you mixed up with Martians and you could come back to Terra and provide spiritual/mathematical/scientific enlightenment as the main ingredient in a watery broth.

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    79. Re:Third-party nominations? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Acceptance.

    80. Re:Third-party nominations? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      That is so incorrect its moon cheese.

    81. Re:Third-party nominations? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      The opposite of acceptance is rejection, and vice versa.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    82. Re:Third-party nominations? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Wrong. if you hate, you're giving power to the other person. You are giving them the power to manipulate you via your emotions. If you give them power, it is you that will lose. Be strong, and don't give a shit. It is the best revenge possible, but by then, you won't care about revenge. You get what you think you want now, but when you get it, you don't care.

      Don't waste energy hating. Turn your hate into indifference to those you hate, and into caring for others that you love. Love everyone.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    83. Re:Third-party nominations? by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      So mars is self moderated...

    84. Re:Third-party nominations? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I'll take Synonyms for 2000, Alex.

    85. Re:Third-party nominations? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I'll hold out for the Saturn cruises. Everybody'll rave about 'em.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    86. Re: Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow thanks Dr Phill

    87. Re:Third-party nominations? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Love is openness, fear is tightness and closeness in a battle for survival. Besides the complementary brain chemicals involved, remember Machiavelli's question to a prince: would you rather be loved or feared?

      I understand it doesn't make sense when one is caught up in words.

    88. Re:Third-party nominations? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      lets just have them all and have mars 2 , 3 and 1000 this is a sign

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    89. Re:Third-party nominations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a joke, man. Lighten up, "Archangel Michael".

  2. Quite a bit of money in application fees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder what they're going to do with it.

  3. 312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    78000 people * 40 cm = 3120000 cm
    3120000 cm = 312000 m = 312 km

    Which two coasts are we talking about?

    1. Re:312 km coast to coast by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think he meant between them.
      That still seems too short though, or these people are very wide.

    2. Re:312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are Americans.

    3. Re:312 km coast to coast by meerling · · Score: 2

      100cm = 1m
      1000m = 1km

      That would be 31.2 km.
      Of course, as you pointed out, that's a very short distance between coasts, so which two coasts are we talking about here?

    4. Re:312 km coast to coast by Ed_1024 · · Score: 2, Informative

      78,000 * 0.4 = 31,200m / 31.2km.

      Long Island coasts, it seems. I hope they use better math when designing the spacecraft...

    5. Re:312 km coast to coast by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      If each of these people were 64 meters wide this would work out.

    6. Re:312 km coast to coast by ridgecritter · · Score: 0

      And anyway, 3,120,000cm = 31,200m = 31.2km

    7. Re:312 km coast to coast by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      What is that, 20 miles? Must be an island.

    8. Re:312 km coast to coast by esampson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mercifully it looks like the math error might be on the part of the poster rather than the article. I did a quick skim of the article and didn't see anywhere were they mentioned anything like how far apart people would be if stretched from coast to coast.

      Of course it is always possible that the article was edited by the time I saw it but since the post doesn't appear to be a quote ripped from the site Occam's Razor is that the poster wrote up the post, did the math, and got it wrong.

    9. Re:312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panama perhaps? Didn't know they were thinking of sending an expedition to Mars...

    10. Re:312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      78000 people * 40 cm = 3120000 cm
      3120000 cm = 312000 m = 312 km

      Which two coasts are we talking about?

      England.

    11. Re:312 km coast to coast by fbumg · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are Americans.

      --
      I know I don't know what I don't know.
    12. Re: 312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a pity this was modded redundant; apparently, people didn't get the joke.

    13. Re: 312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a bigger pity that you don't know what the word "redundant" means.

    14. Re: 312 km coast to coast by Tr3vin · · Score: 5, Funny

      He is an American.

    15. Re:312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      78000 people * 40 cm = 3120000 cm
      3120000 cm = 312000 m = 312 km

      Which two coasts are we talking about?

      You lost me on the 3120000 cm = 312000 m.

      Let me guess, you are american?

    16. Re:312 km coast to coast by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No, an American would have calculated as 3120000 cm = 19.3 m (where "m" of course means "miles").

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:312 km coast to coast by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Oops, 19.4 m, of course (after correct rounding).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    18. Re:312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember it is a Dutch project. The Netherlands is a small country.
      We are seabound only on the west and north border, so "from coast to coast" is not really appropriate, but from the North Sea coast to the IJsselmeer (a lake) coast seems about the right distance.

    19. Re:312 km coast to coast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's 31.2 km...

    20. Re:312 km coast to coast by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

      Bear in mind that this is a Dutch project. A country with coasts roughly 31.2 km apart...

    21. Re:312 km coast to coast by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      What is that, 20 miles? Must be an island.

      Don't be sillly. [john donne]No man is an island [/john donne]

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    22. Re:312 km coast to coast by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      78000 people * 40 cm = 3120000 cm
      3120000 cm = 312000 m = 312 km

      Which two coasts are we talking about?

      It's going to be a Mexican spaceship! Just don't forget to ventilate after eating beans...or rather not?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re: 312 km coast to coast by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      At the stated 64 meters of breadth, wouldn't Americans qualify as highly redundant anyway?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    24. Re:312 km coast to coast by agm · · Score: 1

      It's extremely vague. When saying "coast to coast" you surely need to qualify it. There are thousands upon thousands of different pairs of coasts they could be referring to. My crystal ball is broken - so which coasts is he talking about? Without any more information I assume it's the east and west coast of the North Island of New Zealand because that's where I live. I doubt they meant that though.

    25. Re: 312 km coast to coast by Wolvey · · Score: 1

      Ironically, you didn't get that the "redundant" mod was itself a joke.

    26. Re:312 km coast to coast by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Zandvoort to Amsterdam is about the right distance.

    27. Re:312 km coast to coast by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      The shortest distance between coasts in the US is San Diego to Jacksonville. 2092 miles. 3367 km. 43.2 meters per person.

      Meters, not centimeters.

      So, either we have a units problem, or it's the wrong country.

    28. Re:312 km coast to coast by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Must be that Wainwright Coast to Coast walk in Northern UK, it's only 293km long. Means some would be Astronauts are standing in the water! :-)

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  4. Really? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    I know the idea of going to Mars sounds awesome, but are there that many emotionally stable and qualified applicants who will sign up to be the first to die on another planet?

    I think this is a bad way to go about this.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Really? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I hope they double check their calculations or they may die quicker than they figured by slamming into Mars.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Really? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      What the heck does being emotionally stable have to do with a reality tv program? I would think they would want guys who are douchebags and girls who are emotional basket cases. Toss in a sociopath or two and you have a show!

      Pick the well adjusted outstanding people you would normally pick to be astronauts and there won't be enough drama to keep the viewers attention. Of course, it will all fail when they kill each other and/or themselves but it will probably last longer (budget wise) than the more traditional choices would.

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point - this makes it 20 miles coast to coast. Maybe the submission is from Mexico?

    4. Re:Really? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I hope they double check their calculations or they may die quicker than they figured by slamming into Mars.

      Imagine the hilarity that would ensue back on earth when the punchline is pulled and it is revealed that this is a Marching Morons scenario...

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they double check their calculations or they may die quicker than they figured by slamming into Mars.

      Imagine the hilarity that would ensue back on earth when the punchline is pulled and it is revealed that this is a Marching Morons scenario...

      A quick note from the Council: Your ideas intrigue K'Breel, who would like a subscription to your newsletter.

  5. You mean 78,000 suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing but a fake reality show designed to try and fool people into thinking they're going to mars. I don't know how well they will succeed. But people can be pretty dumb sometimes.

    1. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      The only way to determine if it is fake is to participate in it. Take "The Hunger Games" scenario for example. You can either stay back in your little agenda 21 district and watch it all play out on T.V.

      Or you can step up and volunteer to play by the rules set forth. Then you can affect change from within the system. Or get to a point were you can demonstrate to everyone how fake it is.

      It is a matter of perception. But the vast majority of people do not want to control their own destiny. Thats the simplest reasoning I can give you.

    2. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to determine if it is fake is to participate in it. Take "The Hunger Games" scenario for example. You can either stay back in your little agenda 21 district and watch it all play out on T.V.

      Or you can step up and volunteer to play by the rules set forth. Then you can affect change from within the system. Or get to a point were you can demonstrate to everyone how fake it is.

      Bwahahahahah!

      Yes. The Hunger Games! Teen literature, the best model of reality we have!

      (Or you know, bullshit stories that don't make sense when you think it over for more than 15 minutes -- teen literature has IMO come downhill a long way from heinlein and such back in the day.)

      Thanks for the laugh, pal.

    3. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Well I imagine most people would come to your conclusion after they tested their theories in the real word. Your welcome =)

    4. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I vote we send everyone on the planet who.

      Splits a sentence in the middle and starts a whole new paragraph with the second fragment!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Already been done: Space Cadets.

      However

      A) Their application process would seem to make this more difficult (you want people who aren't really interested in space so they are less informed and easier to fool)
      B) They are also talking about a multi-year training program, which would seem cost prohibitive and would also raise the risk of the participants finding out exponentially.

    6. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Sign me up ;p lol... I took a day off of spamming /. yesterday so give me a break I found these topics interesting today.

    7. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The only way to determine if it is fake is to participate in it. Take "The Hunger Games" scenario for example. You can either stay back in your little agenda 21 district and watch it all play out on T.V.

      Ha! Shows what you know. There are only 12 districts - okay, 13, but we don't talk about them.

      [ sigh ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, then replace Hunger Games with Battle Royale

    9. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Battle Royale was about 1000x better then Hunger Games. Actually I couldn't watch Hunger Games without saying the Japanese did this twice as good two decades ago without all the crap...

    10. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      There were 13 original colonies in America. I think your on to something! =)

    11. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The Hunger Games was supposed to have a deeper meaning, criticising a celebrity- and media-driven culture. It's not even very subtle about it: The ruling nation is called Panem, as in "Panem et circenses." It's just that teenagers generally aren't very good at understanding that type of depth to a story, so all they see is a rather ordinary love story in a ridiculous setting.

    12. Re:You mean 78,000 suckers by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      I think your on to something! =)

      His what? Forgive me, I'm tired :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  6. I would volounteer. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    But I know there are at least a 100,000 more qualified people that will volunteer and do a better job then I on the mission. I imagine a lot of people have not volunteered for that very valid reason. So these look like pretty decent numbers to me, maybe a tiny bit low. But not bad.

    1. Re:I would volounteer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can the best people be found if no-one volunteers? Many of us are disqualified for other reasons. I've got +/-95% visual acuity in one eye (a silly reason, IMHO). Others are married, or have kids. Others still will be eliminated from the selection because they don't create a great first impression (to the audience) or because the selectors have stupid ideas (like Bas saying he doesn't want any engineers...WTF??)

      And to those of you who call these people suckers, remember that many of us care about more than our own skins.

      No man is an iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee...

    2. Re:I would volounteer. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      The thing is, can you legally volounteer, provided that this can be considered as a suicide?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:I would volounteer. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Self disqualification is a big part of a voluntary process =)

      How can the best people be found if no-one volunteers? I however agree with this.

    4. Re:I would volounteer. by Cenan · · Score: 2

      I know there are at least a 100,000 more qualified people that will volunteer and do a better job then I on the mission

      Being qualified for this "mission" only entails being expendable on Earth. This mission is most likely going absolutely nowhere, the real unknowns are what the showstopper is going to be. Will it be their tenuous grasp on basic science? Or perhaps the fact that they havn't got the faintest idea about how they're going to get to Mars in the first place? Maybe it'll be something completely different... We just don't know. Exciting times.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    5. Re:I would volounteer. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue the goal isn't suicide.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:I would volounteer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure. The only examples I can think of off the top of my head are nuclear disasters were people volunteered for certain death, or were perhaps tricked or coerced (in the case of Chernobyl).

      The military does not approve of suicide missions for the sake of suicide missions. But High Risk solutions to certain problems are acceptable. For example a commander can order the least mission critical member of a unit to remove their protective gear to see if an area is safe after a chemical attack. Of course all due precautions would be taken to test. But sometimes you don't have that luxury and need to know for a mission. That is a legal order. It breaks no laws or regulations.

    7. Re:I would volounteer. by Cenan · · Score: 2

      (like Bas saying he doesn't want any engineers...WTF??)

      They probably don't want anyone smart enough to see through the scam that it boils down to being. Kind of like the cold fusion guys some months back that didn't want an audience for their test run. What happened to those people anyways?

      --
      ... whatever ...
    8. Re:I would volounteer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not suicide. It's a one way trip. In theory they plan on continuing to transport more supplies and people to the planet. In practice I doubt that would happen and the people will die, but dying like that isn't suicide.

      I'd volunteer and go if they didn't have all the reality TV crap to go along with it. The volunteers shouldn't be partially picked by a TV show and the first mission astronauts shouldn't be subjected to a popularity contest to determine if their team goes or not.

    9. Re:I would volounteer. by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      Sadly, self-disqualification is exercising rational thought; something I think you'd want lots of in a mission like this.

      Oh wait, this is a reality show now? Carry on....

      Maybe I'll start a pool on how long until the first murder occurs.

    10. Re:I would volounteer. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Death from neutrino's? Woops containment shielding failed, nothing to see here... was it a tokamak?

    11. Re:I would volounteer. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really bad selection criteria.

    12. Re:I would volounteer. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Sadly, self-disqualification is exercising rational thought; something I think you'd want lots of in a mission like this.

      Yes, the Catch-22 Logic:

      The "Catch-22" is that "anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy". Hence, pilots who request a mental fitness evaluation are sane, and therefore must fly in combat. At the same time, if an evaluation is not requested by the pilot, he will never receive one and thus can never be found insane, meaning he must also fly in combat.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re:I would volounteer. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Death from neutrino's? Woops containment shielding failed, nothing to see here... was it a tokamak?

      I'm not sure you can die from neutrino exposure, but it doesn't matter with these people - you won't be able to tokamak of anything (apologies to Mel Brooks ).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:I would volounteer. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Well a synchrotron can fuck you up. But thats more then neutrinos. =) The reasoning I had about neutrinos being harmful is that over time they would damage the heavy metal shielding used on the reactors. The reactors I suppose are shielded more to keep machinery in good order than the people around them. A short burst would probably do no harm.

    15. Re:I would volounteer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the real unknowns are what the showstopper is going to be. Will it be their tenuous grasp on basic science? Or perhaps the fact that they havn't got the faintest idea about how they're going to get to Mars in the first place?

      I know you didn't read the article and all, but you do realize that the contestants aren't actually designing and building the launch vehicle or anything like that, right?

    16. Re:I would volounteer. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Sadly, self-disqualification is exercising rational thought; something I think you'd want lots of in a mission like this.

      This is not necessarily the case. You seem to be confusing rationality with instinct. The desire to continue to live in an instinctive one, and can in some circumstances be a quite irrational one. At most times, though, I would not call it "irrational", but it is at most times arational.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    17. Re:I would volounteer. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Well a synchrotron can fuck you up. But thats more then neutrinos. =) The reasoning I had about neutrinos being harmful is that over time they would damage the heavy metal shielding used on the reactors. The reactors I suppose are shielded more to keep machinery in good order than the people around them. A short burst would probably do no harm.

      I guarantee you that a lifetime of constant exposure to neutrinos has little ill-effect. The Van Allen belts, the atmosphere, even the planet itself do nothing to shield you from them (that's why be build neutrino detectors underground -- that shields out all the other radiation, leaving just the neutrinos to look at). If anyone ever invents a substance capable of shielding neutrinos (other than literally light-year thick lead walls), I suppose it's possible they'd damage the shielding over time, but the heavy metal shielding used by reactors today are not damaged by the neutrinos, for pretty much the same reason that they don't stop them, either. The neutrinos simple don't interact with them. How do the detectors even see them, you ask? Because there are so many of them passing by that occasionally one does hit something. That's right, as we speak, you are currently being bombarded by a ridiculously huge flow of neutrinos. Trust me, it's mostly harmless...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    18. Re:I would volounteer. by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      If I had no familiy or other people who depended on me, I too would be there in a heartbeat. In my mind something like this is the ultimate pioneering/patriot thing a person can do, for humanity. And a privilege. Of course, vastly better suited candidates would come before myself.

    19. Re:I would volounteer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey you are absolutely right and my brain needs some serious stimulation because what I meant to say was NEUTRON Which are NOT Nuetrinos.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_reflector

      Herp a derp ity derp.

      Thanks for the responses anyway. It made me think =)

      -flayzernax

    20. Re:I would volounteer. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      I would love to volunteer for this, could probably even contribute quite well with a range of engineering, IT and even agricultural skills. sadly the height restrictions are a killer as I am 1 inch taller than the maximum :-(

    21. Re:I would volounteer. by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Everybody dies. Can you legally reproduce, provided that it can be considered murder?

      This is an unusually stupid question. Dead on Earth is just as dead as in space or on Mars. Similarly, assuming the project succeeds, you'll be alive on Mars for some period of time ranging from the instant after arrival to the remainder of your natural life, inclusive.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  7. Loto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At around 40$ per person, that's already a good crowd funding campaign.
    So, how long before the project is shut down because, you know, it's not so simple to go there?

  8. 400 meters per person, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, if you're refering to the US coasts.

  9. One little problem... by TimO_Florida · · Score: 1

    Anyone could volunteer to go to Saturn or Alpha Centauri, but the bottom line is we don't have the technology to go any of them.

    1. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Sending people to Alpha Centauri no. Robotic spacecraft, yes we could totally get something there in a century, or even 50 years. Could we get something there that could send a signal back to us? Maybe not. You'd need to send a pretty big power plant to send a signal back that far for us to catch back here. But sending a probe thats small with a nuclear Orion engine yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

      Saturn is a piece of cake. But it would be an extremely shitty ride that would serve very little scientific interest other then the effects of prolonged claustrophobic radiation in zero G.

      You could do it all for less then 500 Million. For 1 Billion you could do it using better then 4 decades old technology.

    2. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Robotic spacecraft, yes we could totally get something there in a century,"

      We have nothing that even approaches 1% of light speed, let alone the 5% you seem to think is no problem. Where do you get your facts from? Voyager 1 is tooting along at 0.005% of lightspeed. Please tell me what miracles have happened that allow for propulsion to have improved a thousand times? Difficulty: only actual, real technology please, invoking magical materials and comic books is not enough.

    3. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I already linked the article: But here is the relevant bit.

      At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s2). At 0.1c, an Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years. The astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.[13]

      I tend to agree with this analysis. Many may not. Thats fine. We don't know for sure, it is definitely does not have a very high degree of certainty. I based my information off of the original community site around the orion engine which had a lot more information and debate. This was all many years ago. I would imagine there might be some improvements to it. But don't have anything to share, sorry.

    4. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      By the way the engineering doesn't use anything un-real. Its all pretty standard stuff. I don't know if there was ever a test. Probably not, there's been to much hub bub about nuclear batteries on Cassini.

      Just testing one would be a worth while mission though, which would probably fit in the budget of the DoD or even Nasa.

    5. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the signal power necessary to reach us from Alpha Centauri is not that much. A standard TV broadcasting station could probably do it, and a microwave laser might be able to do it with even less power.

      That being said, you can't do 'small' with nuclear pulse drives. The nuclear charges have a minimum size that means the smallest possible vehicle is still relatively large. Also, nuclear pulse drives are banned by international treaties.

    6. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I wanted real, physically implemented technology, not hand-waving, wishful thinking, sketches, comic books, CGI, etc. The fact is, there is no magical propulsion technology out there.My analysis is based on real, achievable technology and I find it to be woefully lacking. Space is big, it always will be.

    7. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      By small I was thinking of payload, not the actual ship to carry the payload. But thank you for your clarification =) And its a bloody shame about the treaties, but I can completely understand peoples paranoia about nukes in space. But while we may bitch about our constitutional democracy I still think were sane enough as a society to safely carry out the experiment if we chose to do so. I would trust the institutions we have to do it right. International treaties be damed ;p

    8. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I think it's uniformed to say orion engines are hand wavy. But if you want working things we've built and tested and don't need to prototype. Your correct, can't do it.

      The reasons for us not using the orion engines are not scientific in nature though. They are social, political, or possibly I will give you economic or a combination there of.

    9. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I wasn't even making that comparison to say that one makes the other feasible. I was talking about peoples reluctance to test nuclear stuff in space. Now go away troll.

      Or at least increase your reading comprehension. I know I may have bad syntax and grammar, but its not that bad.

    10. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We don't have the technology. It's hand-wavy because it's not even based on anything that's remotely been done. They're not "engines", they're daydreams. You're advocating we explode our nuclear weapon stockpile to send some unspecified robot (more magical technology) to some super close star and you yourself said we wouldn't even get a signal back.

      So now we have the Earth, with its energy situation, that just blew up tons of purified plutonium to send something somewhere and never hear from it again.

      Or we could build real telescopes and use real computers to enhance the pictures.

    11. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      You are trolling with worse generalizations and less credible information then I do. Your opinion is valid. But I say it is WRONG. =) Thanks Mr. AC

    12. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A standard TV broadcasting station is in the dozens to hundreds of kilowatts of output power. Good luck getting that hardware into space. I think a bit more reality and bit less sci-fi is in order here.

    13. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the interstellar version of Sputnik. Not a broadcasting station.

      P.S. Take the time to read about the orion engine. It is not "sci-fi" it is not science fiction. It was a real project. Run by real physicists and engineers. At a real government laboratory (Los Alamos).

      There are even experimental results to back it up. I am highly insulted by the ignorant jerk who thinks it is a joke. I find it worse then people claiming life cant survive in a vacuum. Its been experimentally proven otherwise.

      Its time to catch up to 1968 for fucks sake.

    14. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "test nuclear stuff in space". It blows up. There. Done. You were talking about fantasy space ships and magical technologies. That's not bad grammar, it's delusional thinking.

    15. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can barely do 0.005% light speed and you're hypothesizing about stuff many orders of magnitude more powerful on the basis of decades-old sketches with absolutely not a shred of actual physical technology to back up your outlandish assertions. Now go back to daydreaming about things that will never, ever happen.

    16. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a motherfucking asshole. Go read the article and attack the actual premise of it rather then me. Since you just want to attack me fuck you and the horse you road in on.

      There's even a discovery that an oil coating will help avoid ablation and that fiberglass would avoid spalling from the nuclear blasts.

      Go fuck yourself. Royally and remove yourself from existence. You are not convincing me that science is magic you fucking tool.

    17. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      It is way beyond a hypothesis and I didn't even do the science. Someone else did. Someone with credentials you don't have. Nor do I. But something I can interpret and something you are oblivious to. Someone payed by the public through the department of defense. I am not going to sit here and argue with you about facts. The facts are there to be had and if your to dumb to go and learn them or debate them beyond "We can't fucking do what the article says". You are not worth my time.

    18. Re:One little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fly-by of Alpha Centauri is possible, but if you want to slow down and take a look around, you'll need a vastly larger fuel supply. If the fuel mass was 100 times the payload mass for the fly-by, it will be 10000 times for a mission to enter orbit in the target system. The rocket equation is a bitch.

    19. Re:One little problem... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Pulse drives aren't exactly that efficient anyway. For the effort and manpower to build one (probably already in space) we could also develop suitable reactors for an nuclear thermal-lightbulb type engine (Project Pluto). That's also old technology, by and large - the engine was tested and functioned, and the principles of operating it with monopropellant in space are hardly an insurmountable challenge and essentially related to other technology (the Skylon engine or any of the other types of scramjets the US military is building)

    20. Re:One little problem... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Aye, The reason for doing a mission like that would be to test the science. A better target would probably be Pluto or somewhere out in the kuiper belt or Eris. There's lots of interesting questions out there, like why is the ice not as old and crystallized as modern solar system formation models tell us. This could be an error in measurement. But current spacecraft tech can get us there MUCH cheaper and without crazy international issues.

      So I doubt we will see a test any time soon =/

      Some mention of simulation. We might have the capability to do a fairly rigorous simulation of one though.

      I think a spacecraft with enough fuel to park itself in alpha century with a travel speed of .1c is unrealistic. But not impossible.

  10. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quick calculation shows that this means people lined up coast-to-coast in a line with only 40cm per person!

    WTF does this mean?

    1. Re:WTF by Cenan · · Score: 1

      WTF does this mean?

      Someone found a really small island to have the enrollment on? Who knows?
      78000 * 40 cm = 3120000 cm = 31200 m = 31.2 km.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:WTF by Desler · · Score: 1

      It means the submitter and Unknown Lamer fail at arithmetic.

  11. And that's just people dumb enough to sign up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, I'd be happy to go, but I'm smart enough to realize I have basically no chance (I'm a cross-discipline engineer -- B.S.es in both E.E. and M.E. -- so I'm, let's say, in the top percentile. Big deal -- that only leaves many thousands of people with better qualifications), so it's not a rational use of my time to sign up. (It's probably also not a rational use of my time to type this post about rational uses of time, but let's don't go there, shall we.)

    I'm sure there's many others like me who don't bother to sign up for the same reason, which just underscores the unshortage -- if there was a shortage, then we'd all sign up (because we'd have a non-negligible chance of being selected) and there wouldn't be a shortage.

    1. Re:And that's just people dumb enough to sign up! by Cenan · · Score: 1

      If that's the reason you think you wont go, you're not smart enough. Which incidently qualifies you to go. How's that for Catch-22?

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:And that's just people dumb enough to sign up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I get it. I was mostly replying in the tone of TFS's Zubrin reference, and ignoring the details of Mars One being BS.

      But to be honest, fuck it, I'm gambler enough that if I thought I had a decent shot at being selected for a real Mars run, I'd sign up for this.

      Yeah, it's 99% probability it's a fake reality TV scam, and if not that, there's another 99% chance that it will fall through for one reason (like no suitable rockets available by 2020 or whenever they said) or another, but what about that other 0.01% chance where it's a genuine private-sector Mars mission and you get to die in a fiery rocket explosion and be remembered in history as having more guts than sense?

      (Probabilities estimated after having spent all of 10 minutes reading about Mars One. Don't blame me if I've got the wrong number of 9s...)

  12. Disappointment by RavenousRhesus · · Score: 1

    Imagine how disappointed those people will be when they're dying on Mars and get word that a manned fly-by and return mission has just launched.

  13. Pass by ab0mb88 · · Score: 1

    Look at those pictures Mars is going to be a sausage-fest!

  14. Bleaker than you think! by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the Mars One, you'll see that they're counting on revenue from a reality program to fund the project.

    So, the candidates must not only be emotionally stable and qualified, but be photogenic and charming enough to sustain the interest of viewers.

    Imagine the horror if, after three years, all of the surviving colonists turn out to be phlegmatic, agreeable, no-drama workaholics and stable family-minded folks.

    "These rating are terrible! My God, it's turned into The Waltons in space! Can we ship in some ninjas or a killer robot to liven things up?"

    1. Re:Bleaker than you think! by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you read the Mars One, you'll see that they're counting on revenue from a reality program to fund the project.

      Awesome, I've been expecting that sooner or later reality TV would go in the direction of people dying for years now.

      I'm sure the dying moments of these people will make for really awesome ratings.

      What a dumb fscking idea.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haha,

      what reality stars are emotionally stable?

      If they want to make a reality show, I think we know exactly the type of people they'll select and trust me they won't be astronaut grade.

    3. Re:Bleaker than you think! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      People who are emotionally stable and qualified are not suitable for reality tv.

    4. Re:Bleaker than you think! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as emotionally stable people Sheldon =) only terminally delusional people.

    5. Re:Bleaker than you think! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I do not get the reference.

      I would also argue that it is wrong.

    6. Re:Bleaker than you think! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Some reality Shows are fine. For example 'Big Brain Theory'.
      Of course the producers work damn hard to invent some.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is that a problem?

      What dying moments will be broadcast? Ideally, the travelers would survive long enough to set up a viable sustainable colony, whose expenses could be handled by a large enough trust fund. By the time they die of natural causes, the reality show would be long-since off the air.

      In a less ideal situation, the travelers' catastrophic dying moments are broadcast to the world, and the travelers are martyrs in the ongoing process of human exploration. This is a known risk, which all the travelers must accept before volunteering. Why, then, would it be a problem to broadcast the unintentional deaths of these brave folks? The chance of their sudden death is something they accept... why can't we viewers accept it as well?

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    8. Re:Bleaker than you think! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      “If you think anyone is sane you just don't know enough about them.”
        Christopher Moore, Practical Demonkeeping

      Linux fortune is great.

      Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory is a delusional geek who thinks he is the perfect specimen of mankind. At the top of the evolutionary order and everyone else is plagued with insanity.

    9. Re:Bleaker than you think! by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The chance of their sudden death is something they accept... why can't we viewers accept it as well?

      This isn't a chance. It's a 1 way trip. They'll either die on Mars, die taking off, or die getting there. But, they *will* die.

      Of course viewers will accept it, they'll embrace it -- pretty much like they embraced gladiatorial and watching public executions and watching decapitation videos on the internet.

      I somehow doubt that a Mars mission funded by a reality show is going to create a viable self sustaining colony which allows these people to die of natural causes.

      I can accept an astronaut signing up for something which is risky, but has a reasonable chance of working. But I'm a little creeped out by a guaranteed death sentence from a one way mission operated by a private company who wants to have a reality show.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Bleaker than you think! by hedwards · · Score: 2

      There are degrees of emotional stability. Most people are relatively stable, otherwise nothing would get done and we couldn't have a society. The folks that fit in well with society are generally not suitable for reality programming. It would be like going to a movie called "accounts: the motion picture" where they were actual accountants engaged in regular accounting practices. I shouldn't spoil it, but about halfway in, they find a misplaced comma and have to redo the numbers.

    11. Re:Bleaker than you think! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I find that show pretty offensive so I refuse to watch it. If it stereotyped other groups that way it would already be off the air.

    12. Re:Bleaker than you think! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Well, thats not the quote I was looking for. It goes something like this "The first stage of insanity is believing you are sane". =) I wish I could fine the exact fortune database with it, because the guy who said it I believe was someone historically known for deep thought and their outlook on psychology or philosophy.

    13. Re:Bleaker than you think! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but there are tons of people out there who could qualify for this without being deemed insane. Which I think is the parents argument. That anyone is insane for wanting their contribution to life be a mission to Mars on public T.V.

    14. Re:Bleaker than you think! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      I don't think its any worse then Fresh Prince of Bell Air. It is mildly entertaining. But about as banal as cats and hamburgers. I can understand your dislike of it.

    15. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a little creeped out by a guaranteed death sentence from a one way mission

      why? were you creeped out when you learned that europeans sailed to the americas?

      It's a 1 way trip. They'll either die on Mars, die taking off, or die getting there. But, they *will* die.

      spoiler alert, everybody dies. i'd rather be one of the first people to live and die on mars than the umpteen billionth person to live and die on earth.

    16. Re:Bleaker than you think! by ewieling · · Score: 1

      This isn't a chance. It's a 1 way trip. They'll either die on Mars, die taking off, or die getting there. But, they *will* die.

      You missed one: They will die if they stay on Earth. It is simply a matter of exactly when, not if.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    17. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are going to die if they stay on earth too.

      Seriously. Everyone dies. They have a guaranteed death sentence if they stay on earth. If these people thing this is a good way to live out their lives, who are you to say they can't?

    18. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Not me. I'm having my head cryogenically frozen. I'll be relived when they perfect immortality.

    19. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Hentes · · Score: 1

      No, they are counting on revenue from the application fees these 80k idiots have just paid. It's not like they really plan to send people to space.

    20. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen this before... Took a sec to find. SMBC

    21. Re:Bleaker than you think! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So, the candidates must not only be emotionally stable and qualified, but be photogenic and charming enough to sustain the interest of viewers.

      Actually, for the success of the reality TV show, it's better if art least some are not emotionally stable and qualified. It makes a much more interesting watch. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    22. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gladiators, executions, and snuff films differ from pioneering in one major aspect: the pioneers choose to take the risk. The AC summed up my opinion pretty well. Everybody dies. Every moment we live is another moment closer to our death... If someone has no better long-term plans, why not volunteer?

      It's a simple gamble. The prize is an extremely valuable contribution to human exploration. The entry price is difficult communication with most other humans for the rest of your life, however long that may be. The risk is a sudden death.

      Like every other wager, whether it's advantageous depends on the cost/benefit analysis. Someone who doesn't value their connections on Earth nearly as much as their contributions to science may find it perfectly reasonable to risk a sudden death for the chance to begin human planetary colonization. If that's their opinion and their choice, why not respect it?

      There is a pervasive idea in Western culture that death is something tragic. We avoid death to the point where we spend our whole lives taking pills, exercising, and cowering in fear of what new deaths we might encounter. The very mention of death brings sadness into a party, and funerals are silent orgies of despair. Why must we all be such cowards? Let us go each day seeking new ways to die. Not merely new to each individual, but a death unlike any other in history. Now, the corollary to that is that we must avoid deaths that have been done before. Avoid heart attacks lying on the couch, avoid getting hit by a bus that you thought would stop, and avoid getting mauled by animals.

      A natural death on Mars after a long career of science hasn't happened yet, and neither has a fiery death in a do-or-die effort to return a drifting interplanetary spacecraft. Let's do it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    23. Re:Bleaker than you think! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Think Howard Stearns meets "Six Feet Under".

      And then mix a little "Lost" in with "Jersey Shore" and ferment.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:Bleaker than you think! by lobotomir · · Score: 1

      They'll either die on Mars, die taking off, or die getting there.

      Those people have been swindled out of their admission fee and not one of them is getting outside the Earth's atmosphere anytime soon.

    25. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Motard · · Score: 1

      But we have laws against suicides, allowing suicides, and snuff films (not sure which category this falls into). I think the first episode of the show might have an ending similar to that of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    26. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the horror if, after three years, all of the surviving colonists turn out to be phlegmatic, agreeable, no-drama workaholics and stable family-minded folks.

      "These rating are terrible! My God, it's turned into The Waltons in space! Can we ship in some ninjas or a killer robot to liven things up?"

      What reality shows really do is compress a long period of footage into a small period by editing out all the parts that aren't "drama".

      It takes a pretty small amount of actual arguing to make a reality show. Hell they could even pull crap like send a message saying there'll be a big announcement in 2 days, the announcement being "we changed out mind about having an announcement", and milk the idle speculation and bitching about the built up/let down for half a season.

    27. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 2

      "Years ago, it meant something to be crazy. Now everyone's crazy." Charles Manson

      "Insanity is relative. It depends on who has who locked in what cage." Ray Bradbury

      "Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." H.L. Mencken

    28. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      All of which originate in the same fear of death. I also think the laws against suicide are silly. The laws forbidding snuff films aim to eliminate a financial incentive for murder, but they're all irrelevant here.

      Those laws only apply to someone committing an act with intent. A prosecutor would have to prove that the people in charge intended for the travelers to die, and that the death was a direct result of their actions.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    29. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Motard · · Score: 1

      Do you really think they'll have a plausible plan for 60-80 earth years of life support?

    30. Re:Bleaker than you think! by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      "Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." H.L. Mencken

      Lol that is definitely a good one.

    31. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      More likely end up in a landfill.

    32. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I work at a finance company. Anything over 50 years is good length to plan for, because short-term problems don't actually affect long-term expectations. A low-risk investment plan for an average of 4% real return isn't unreasonable, and with enough a large enough initial investment (such as a few hundred million dollars in government grants, reality-show profits, and venture capital), the returns on that could fund operations for long enough, especially with launch costs dropping.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    33. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me. I'm having my head cryogenically frozen. I'll be relived when they perfect immortality.

      Good - then there will be plenty of time to learn some real words.

    34. Re:Bleaker than you think! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Offensive in what way? To geekdom? Sure, Sheldon's kind of a dick, Howard's kind of a dick, and Raj is kind of a dick (Leonard's alright though), but that quirkiness is what people find funny, I think (and the producers have stated repeatedly that Sheldon does not have Asperger's)

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    35. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spoiler alert, everybody dies. i'd rather be one of the first people to live and die on mars than the umpteen billionth person to live and die on earth.

      You could always try... I dunno... doing something meaningful on earth?

    36. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      But, they *will* die.

      Unlike those who stay and live for ever?

    37. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And beyond that it isn't really a one way trip. Yes, you might be given a one way trip, but stay the colony actually becomes viable. What about 20 years from after you get there, maybe in 2043 we'll have full 2 way travel going and some of those first settlers will be able to attempt the difficult transition back to Earth.

      I for one would like to go even if it was a one way, I have no issues dying there, I'd love to take the adventure, the reality show part is the part keeping me from applying...maybe a bottle of vodka will fix that.

    38. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be 7 years of training for the candidates to undergo before the trip. It is quite possible the show will be canceled before they actually go anywhere.

    39. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      If you read the Mars One, you'll see that they're counting on revenue from a reality program to fund the project.

      So, the candidates must not only be emotionally stable and qualified, but be photogenic and charming enough to sustain the interest of viewers.

      Imagine the horror if, after three years, all of the surviving colonists turn out to be phlegmatic, agreeable, no-drama workaholics and stable family-minded folks.

      "These rating are terrible! My God, it's turned into The Waltons in space! Can we ship in some ninjas or a killer robot to liven things up?"

      Emotionally stable is the exact opposite of what is needed for a successful reality TV show. People want to watch others on TV who are batshit crazy. It helps them feel like their own only slightly less batshit decisions are more rational than they really are.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    40. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like torches in the aeon flow
      Even suns flicker and die
      Forgotten as the ages grow
      Eternity is not for you

    41. Re:Bleaker than you think! by culmor30 · · Score: 1

      Would you be in favor of televised, "to the death"-style gladiatorial matches in which all contestants were volunteers who willingly accepted the risks?

    42. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like Big Brother or the like, I guess photogenic and charming ain't a qualification criterion. Rather anti-social tendencies and being generally gross.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What I'd be wary of as one of those volunteers: What's gonna happen when the ratings go south and the show gets canceled? I mean, I still wanna live a few decades, and the average show has a lifetime of what? 5 years? 10 if it's very successful?

      Will they keep sending supplies once the "stranded" are no longer profitable?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already completed the small scale version of the reality show back in 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series)
      If you haven't seen that, it's actually pretty fun (if a bit drawn out and slow).

    45. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It might be bad taste, but yes. Heck, it's pretty much just a more honest variant on any other extreme sport.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    46. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      I find that show pretty offensive so I refuse to watch it. If it stereotyped other groups that way it would already be off the air.

      Offensive? Non-funny I could understand, but offensive? Yes, the show's making fun of a stereotype, that's par of the course for sit-coms (of course, you might find them all offensive). Reacting that way to such a show gives me the impression that you are somewhat... uptight. People have been subjected to offensive treatment in popular entertainment (minstrel shows and country music (since I appreciate actual music) come to mind), but Big Bang Theory is not it.

      I am considered a major nerd amongst my friends, and they joke about it all the time. To be fair, I do have some hang-ups, which are not perpetuated solely in jest. I don't find their jokes "offensive", and if I did and complained about it, people would probably (rightly) stop inviting me to social happenings. If your reaction is representative of your general approach to social interaction, do yourself a favour and lighten up a little :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    47. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? were you creeped out when you learned that europeans sailed to the americas?

      I don't even.....

      Look, it doesn't matter where you go on Earth you can likely survive. You can find stuff to eat, water to drink, etc. You have air to breath. You have weather, living things, and even in the most desolate places you still have some form of life around. You can wander. You can roam. And worst case, you can always go home.

      Mars is desolate. I don't really think you know what that means and what kind of psychological impact that has. There is no food there. There is no water. There is no air. There is no way home. If you didn't bring it with you, you certainly aren't going to find it there.

      This isn't some deserted island where you make a friend out of basketball and carve out a living from the wilderness. You're mad survivalist skills mean jack shit on Mars. Assuming you make it to Mars to begin with and can survive the psychological stress and you don't develop complications due to the high radiation/low gravity, you are still 100% dependent on the equipment. And if something breaks or is broken during transport, it's unlikely you will survive the 6 month minimum shipping time for a replacement. And even then, sending replacements parts doesn't do much good if your outdoor pressure suit is thing that was busted.

      Watching a human being slowly degrade psychologically or slowly die of cancer with no treatments on a far off world isn't what I would term entertainment, but I'm sure it will sell a few more boxes of macaroni and cheese. However it is far more likely the person would die during transit or entry.

      spoiler alert, everybody dies. i'd rather be one of the first people to live and die on mars than the umpteen billionth person to live and die on earth.

      You and I have very different definitions of living. Your basically strapped into a life support machine in the middle of the Andes desert that has all the air removed by a vacuum pump. Sure, it will have a a coolness factor (assuming you make it there alive) but I can guarantee you it will get really old really fast. If the results of the simulation experiment they did a few years back are anything to go by, at best you'd last a couple of years.

    48. Re:Bleaker than you think! by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      I can accept an astronaut signing up for something which is risky, but has a reasonable chance of working. But I'm a little creeped out by a guaranteed death sentence from a one way mission operated by a private company who wants to have a reality show.

      Life is a guaranteed death sentence. I'm not seeing how that's much different than not signing up... IMO, it's not how long you live, that's silly. You'll be dead (or unborn) for infinitely longer a time than alive. What counts is the journey, and what you do with your life.

      Frankly, I've lost complete tolerance for any humans who aren't actively trying to do something about the problem of having all the eggs in one basket called Earth.

      I don't care if they're going to fund Mars One via reality TV, live porn, or human centipede eating contests. The fact that we don't already have an off-world colony, despite 4 decades of manned space exploration is quite retarded. You want to just wait around some more, like dinosaurs until some 'acceptable' parties manage to trick the ignorant masses into funding a colony? How horrible to think a big rock could be discovered heading this way tomorrow, and we'd have missed our chance to have any sort of defense or at least a self sustaining off world gene pool -- Pissed away our chances by fighting stupid petty wars instead.

      These volunteers are trail blazers who are doing more for mankind with their sacrifice than any single human ever has. I don't think they care how it gets funded either, there's WAY more important things at work here... Like reducing our current 100% odds that we'll become extinct -- And it's not just humans I'm talking about. It's all life on Earth. These folks, and all who further our footholds in space, are the only ones actually saving the World.

    49. Re:Bleaker than you think! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      spoiler alert, everybody dies. i'd rather be one of the first people to live and die on mars than the umpteen billionth person to live and die on earth.

      You could always try... I dunno... doing something meaningful on earth?

      Let me know how that works out for you. Protip: Asteroids come from Space. Space is where we have to go if we don't want ALL the meaningful stuff ever done on Earth to be for nothing.

    50. Re:Bleaker than you think! by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      they won't be astronaut grade.

      How would you know?
      What happens on the ISS, stays on the ISS.

    51. Re:Bleaker than you think! by mrxak · · Score: 1

      I could not agree more. Colonization of space should be our highest priority as a species. I think people are focusing too much on the reality TV thing. This isn't American Idol or whatever, nor are they sending all 78,000 people.

      Somewhere in that 78,000 (and rising) will be enough applicants who will be quite capable of carrying out the mission. They'll have the right temperament, intelligence, and ability to complete the extensive training that they'll be given and carry out the mission. All they're doing right now are looking for volunteers. This is just the first phase. Thousands apply to be astronauts at NASA every year, too. I'm sure plenty of them are not very qualified, and those are the ones who wash out.

      As for using reality TV to fund it, I don't see why that matters. All they're doing is making a documentary of the process and the mission, and then selling that to an interested audience. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm rather interested. If they want to slap some corporate logos on the side of the rocket too, they should feel free. Whatever works to fund the thing, who cares?

      At a time when governments around the world seem more interested in robots and low Earth orbit than in actual human exploration of our universe, we should be thrilled with the prospect of a one-way trip to Mars. While I won't be volunteering, I salute anyone who's willing to make the trip.

      Is $6 billion enough money? I don't really know. I don't think any of the naysayers know either. There may very well be cost overruns, once they've done more work. That's usually how things go. $6 billion is likely just what their goal is. What I do know is that they don't have the same kind of requirements as a NASA mission, let's say. It costs a heck of a lot more to return from Mars than it does to simply land and survive on it. Mars has gravity and an atmosphere, which means the lander would have to be significantly larger than a one-way lander. Then there's the matter of returning to Earth from Mars, not a very cheap prospect. All that means a smaller, cheaper rocket to get to Mars to begin with.

      There's also very little new science and engineering that needs to be done, for a mission like this. Landing a manned craft on Mars will be the hardest part, due to the atmosphere and gravity. We already know how to get to Mars with a crew and create a self-sustaining environment there, we've just never bothered to spend the money to do it yet. We just have to build all the parts and put them together, then select and train a few individuals to do the mission. Nearly all of the problems have already been solved, and will not require huge amounts of expensive research. This project is standing on the shoulders of giants.

      Yes, these people are signing up to die on Mars. So? That's kind of the point, to see how long they can survive. It doesn't really matter how long they last, it will have been worth it to them to have just made it farther out into the solar system than any human ever has before. I can understand why some people would not choose to volunteer for this, but don't assume that just because YOU don't see the point, that there's not plenty who do. Some may want to be famous, to get their names in the history books. Some may want to see what they're made of, to prove something to themselves. Some may want to be there for scientific reasons, to conduct experiments on Mars, or study the geology, to write papers to email back to Earth for publishing in journals. Some may just want to see with their own eyes another world, and have a story to tell. I think all of those reasons are perfectly valid, and if they're willing to risk their lives, to choose what planet they want to die on, I don't think any of us have a right to say they shouldn't do it. We should celebrate these people. They are cut from the same cloth as so many other past explorers. You think Christopher Columbus wasn't told he'd die at sea? Humans have always been risk-takers, always wanting to see what's over the next hill, or across the

    52. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      But we have laws against suicides, allowing suicides, and snuff films (not sure which category this falls into).

      Speaking of laws, what happens when food gets low and the biggest guy on the show murders the smallest one and cooks him up for dinner? Do we send up a one-way police ship to arrest him?

    53. Re:Bleaker than you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What incentive would they have to revive you? Generosity? I'm sure they can find something more worthwhile to waste their efforts and resources on.

    54. Re:Bleaker than you think! by culmor30 · · Score: 1

      I guess we just have a difference of opinion, then. That sounds like a societal regression to me, and a pretty awful one at that.

    55. Re:Bleaker than you think! by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1

      I do not think you understand what is involved with a trip to Mars. It is very very far away. We have to wait for decades to get the planets close enough just to try to get there with the technology we have. The cost involved with sending things over there is astronomical. We have not been able to do much more than send robots. We cannot send enough provisions to allow humans to live for more than a few months. This is one way trip to die relatively quickly. I do not believe that any TV station in western civilization will agree to broadcast that.

    56. Re:Bleaker than you think! by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Gladiators, executions, and snuff films differ from pioneering in one major aspect: the pioneers choose to take the risk.

      Small nit: Despite years of Hollywood movies to the contrary, Roman gladiators were professional athletes, usually hired for funeral games. They only died as the result of an accident. Some of them were even celebrities.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    57. Re:Bleaker than you think! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      I somehow doubt that a Mars mission funded by a reality show is going to create a viable self sustaining colony which allows these people to die of natural causes.

      I'd say the odds are at least 78,000 to 1 against it. In fact, if any of these clowns reach Earth orbit I'd be shocked.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
  15. So what? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So? In this era of "liking" and "sharing" and "+1ing"... 78k "likes" isn't all that impressive. (And the vast majority probably aren't qualified and won't pass screening in the first place - they're just applying because it's "cool".)

    1. Re:So what? by mtmra70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? 78,000 people paid an application fee of at least $5. I would say that is a bit beyond "liking".

    2. Re:So what? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I +1 you 78k.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      closer to $40

    4. Re:So what? by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      But still a far cry from risking their lives for the cause.

    5. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, well, you're unable to use an apostrophe correctly, so the validity of your comments is questionable.

  16. Those must be some big people by sdemjanenko · · Score: 1

    3000km = 3*10^6 m
    This result in each person being 38.46m.

  17. Math is way off. by butlerm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Somebody needs a math lesson. 3000 miles * 5280 feet per mile / 78000 = 203 feet. That is a tad more than 40 cm.

    1. Re:Math is way off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody needs a math lesson. 3000 miles * 5280 feet per mile / 78000 = 203 feet. That is a tad more than 40 cm.

      I just assumed the poster is from a really small, unnamed country with coasts on opposite sides.

    2. Re:Math is way off. by Alastor187 · · Score: 2

      Somebody needs a math lesson. 3000 miles * 5280 feet per mile / 78000 = 203 feet. That is a tad more than 40 cm.

      Seems appropriate given this is a story about sending something to Mars.

    3. Re:Math is way off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't quite grasp this concept, perhaps a car analogy is needed...

    4. Re:Math is way off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You appear to be assuming that the writer refers to the USA when talking about cost-to-coast distances. Given that most people who would use the US as a baseline are unlikely to choose metric measurements (a tendancy your above calculation lends some credence to) the poster is probably taking about another location.

      Assuming that the calculation in the summary is accurate (which is just as valid as assuming a given country) we are looking for a location that has a coast to coast distance of between 30 and 40 km.

    5. Re:Math is way off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which coast to which coast.... or are you assuming the US?

    6. Re:Math is way off. by period3 · · Score: 1

      Wait, are we talking about the guy who made the math mistake, or the guy who didn't use the metric system?

    7. Re:Math is way off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFA:

      These numbers put us right on track for our goal of half a million applicants

      Half a million people people at 40 cm each is 200 km, which is coast-to-coast in The Netherlands, the home of Mars One. I think the math is sound, it's just the summary that's completely messed up as usual.

    8. Re:Math is way off. by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      Hmm...

      880 yards in half a mile,
      that's 1760 yards in a full mile
      a yard is 3 feet long,
      so a mile is 5280 feet.

      Why do Americans cling to such an awkward measurement system?

      Not sure about the USA, but here in NZ an inch is defined as exactly 25.4 mm.
      So since a foot is 12 inches, a foot is 304.8 mm
      so a mile is exactly 1,609,344 mm, or 1,609.344 metres, or 1.609344 km

      Metric is a lot easier to deal with than the American Imperial System!

      What do you actually mean by the width of the USA (see below!)?
      I think 2,892 miles is the width most appropriate here, as we want the land to be contiguous (ignoring lakes & rivers!).

      2,892 * 1,609,344 mm = 4,654,222,848 mm
      4,654,222,848 mm / 78000 = 59,669.53 mm
      59,669.53 / 304.8 =195.77

      So there would be about 200 feet or about 60 metres person.

      http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/uslandst.htm
      [...]
      Horizontal Width: 2,680 miles
      [...]

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_width_of_the_US_from_coast_to_coast
      [...]
              The precise distance depends on the exact latitude where you make the measurement but it is approximately 3,000 miles.

              It is roughly 3,400 miles at its widest point

              From Virgina Beach, Va. to San Jose, Ca. it is about 2,990 miles. From Jacksonville, Fl. to Aberdeen, Wa. it is 3,087 miles. From Augusta, Maine to Los Angeles, Ca it is 3,148 miles. This gives you an average of 3,075 miles.
      [...]

      http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-wide-is-the-united-states-in-miles-from-point-arena-california-to-west-quoddy-head-maine
      [...]
      The width of the United States depends on whether Alaska or Hawaii is included.

      Measured from the farthest points west and east in the conterminous United States, meaning the 48 states that have a common boundary, which are West Quoddy Head, Maine, and Point Arena, California, the United States is 2,892 miles (4,656 km) wide.

      Measured between the farthest points between the eastern United States and Alaska, Soldier Key, Florida, and Cape Wrangell, Alaska, the distance is 5,503 miles (8,860 km).

      From Soldier Key, Florida, to Kure Island, Hawaii, the distance is 5,859 miles (9,433 km).
      [...]

    9. Re:Math is way off. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      which is coast-to-coast in The Netherlands, the home of Mars One.

      Of course, I should have known they were talking about that island between the English Channel and the Sea of Germany.

  18. 40cm? Bad math in summary by Jaryn · · Score: 2

    40 cm per person? No... 40 m per person? Yes.

    1. Re:40cm? Bad math in summary by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think you are right. Someone missed a decimal place. Does not inspire confidence in an interplanetary mission.

    2. Re:40cm? Bad math in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are right. Someone missed a decimal place. Does not inspire confidence in an interplanetary mission.

      OTOH, editors don't generally run interplanetary manned missions.

    3. Re:40cm? Bad math in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i always mess up some mundane detail..

    4. Re:40cm? Bad math in summary by Cenan · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet that the combined ineptitude of the /. editor's have a better chance of setting foot on Mars using nothing but toilet rolls and bent spoons, than this mission has. It's a scam, the sign-up fee would be your clue.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    5. Re:40cm? Bad math in summary by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Because of course the USA is the only country in the world with coasts...

  19. Hey love, let's go to mars and die there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great idea love! It sound soooo romantic to be the first couple to step on Mars. Our love will forever be remembered~ Let's do it!

    *15 odd years later*

    On second thought, let's not go to Mars. Tis a silly place anyway.

  20. I hope the guy who did that calculation... by istartedi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope the guy who did that calculation is not computing the path of the spacecraft.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:I hope the guy who did that calculation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have it on good authority that this story was submitted by a retired 'Mars Climate Orbiter' engineer, so no worries.

  21. Money in the bank by Davess · · Score: 2

    What the summary fails to mention is that the "application fee" was at minimum $20 USD, and went upwards towards $40 USD depending on the country. Worst case scenario they made about $1.5 million off of applications alone. I would think that volunteering to permanently leave your life behind would be enough collateral without needing to nickel and dime applicants. This reeks of the space-equivalent of vaporware to me.

    1. Re:Money in the bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This actually reeks of fraud to me. One person's vaporware is another person's fraud. This is a tried and true mechanism for committing fraud on a massive scale:

      1. Pitch stupid idea to 100k+ people
      2. Get each person (or most of the people) to pledge a small amount of money towards the idea
      3. The idea never goes anywhere and the idea pitchers cannot be found (with 2+ million in the bank)

      This is exactly how {insert favourite TV evangelist} extorted millions from basically poor people, but instead of sending your money to God you're sending money to some idea almost as equally stupid. After looking at their website, there is no financial information disclosure and no appointed auditors. The whole thing smells like a scam. The only difference being that most people don't really complain loudly when they're out a paltry sum of cash.

  22. Telephone hygienists by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just wondering. What percentage of those are Telephone hygienists?

    1. Re:Telephone hygienists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since it's a reality TV show I bet there are going to be at least a few TV Producers and Hairdressers.

    2. Re:Telephone hygienists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear all but three of them are faggot neckbeard Linux users who's knowledge of science comes from lame faggot jokes from the bang gay ass bang theory.

  23. Can I apply as "Ruler of Mars"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wanted to take over the world, but since earth is taken, maybe I can apply to be the new ruler there.

  24. Great way to get funding... by WinstonWoof · · Score: 1

    At $38 per application this means they have already generated $2,964,000 Clever way to get funding if you ask me..

  25. most from usa and china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shows that people will do ANYTHING to get the fuck out of their respective countries.

  26. wikipedia from canada just went ...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wikipedia from canada just went ......POOF now its so slow its not funny

  27. Who cares? by deuterium · · Score: 1

    This is about as likely to happen as North Korea landing a man on the moon.
    I'll volunteer to be the first man to arm wrestle an alien.

    1. Re:Who cares? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      They claim that they are going to launch a soft-landing pre-supply mission to Mars in January 2016. That is about two-and-a-half years from now. That must be when they are planning to take the money and run.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Who cares? by deuterium · · Score: 1

      It does seem to be profitable venture.

  28. If every applicant had been charged $1... by srijon · · Score: 1

    They would have doubled their budget.

    1. Re:If every applicant had been charged $1... by srijon · · Score: 1

      Doh - the US applicants were charged $38, so they have already bumped their funding level significantly.

  29. Reality TV Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars One intends to fund this decade-long endeavor by involving the whole world as the audience of an interactive, televised broadcast of every aspect of this mission, from the astronaut selections and their preparations to the arrival on Mars and their lives on the Red Planet.

    Sounds like the biggest, most expensive television reality show, to-date. Question: what happens if the ratings aren't good?...or what happens if the audience decidedly hates one of the contestants after the mission launches/lands on Mars? :P

    1. Re:Reality TV Show by Cenan · · Score: 1

      He gets voted off?

      --
      ... whatever ...
  30. who I'd like to see disapear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone apply in Justin Bieber's name? Then, after the mission launches and he lands on Mars, lets cancel the show.

    1. Re:who I'd like to see disapear by Cenan · · Score: 1

      Bieber is just manipulating the teenage girl flock mentality for profit, for the moment he's pretty harmless. Sign up someone we'd really be better of without. Kim-Jong-Un, now that'd be a show worth watching.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:who I'd like to see disapear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kim Jong Un would be readily replaced. This would solve nothing.

      P.S. Fuck you slashdot for limiting the amount of times I can access a motherfucking resource.

  31. Registration fee by darthdavid · · Score: 1

    I signed up for the news letter and was planning on applying but they want 38 fucking dollars as a registration fee. Screw that. If I actually thought this was gonna go anywhere I'd gladly pay it. If it was 5 bucks or so I'd gladly pay it just on a lark even thinking as I do that this will probably amount to nothing. 40 bucks just to apply for something that will probably fail and that I probably won't get picked for even if it does succeed? Fuck that noise!

    1. Re:Registration fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry you're poor.

  32. It's a FAAAAAAKE! by itsdapead · · Score: 2

    This is nothing but a fake reality show designed to try and fool people into thinking they're going to mars

    or, more likely, a fake fake reality show designed to fool viewers into thinking that the contestants thought they were going to Mars.

    (Actually, putting even one "fake" before "reality show" is redundant).

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  33. More like 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can whittle that down to about 3 that have the nerve to actually do it as launch day approaches.

  34. Don't forget to pack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a 3D printer. There's no Home Depot on Mars, you know.

    1. Re:Don't forget to pack by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Interesting thought. 3D printing and metal milling would definitely be some tools which would be useful to have. After all, in standard "mission control" fashion, unforeseen issues could be resolved with some instructions and possibly uploaded data for the fabrication devices.

  35. I hope they bring back Elvis by Lussarn · · Score: 1

    NT.

  36. Have they gotten past the radiation problem? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, a trip of that amount of time and distance will expose people to all sorts of life shortening types of energy. I'm not sure I see the point of that trip without protection from all of that. Is there SPF-2000 yet?

    1. Re:Have they gotten past the radiation problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a publicity stunt for a low-budget TV show. None of the participants will be going to Mars.

  37. Scam Aimed At The Innumerate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From their website:
    "The Life Support Unit is able to collect 1500 liters water and 120 kilograms oxygen in 500 days time."

    That's 3 liters of water per day, for drinking, growing food and sanitation, per landing craft. That won't even support ONE person.

    The presence of a 'Merchandise' link on their site is a good indication of what this project is really about.

  38. Been there, done that... by jtara · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for Pan Am to let me know when my number comes up for the Moon First Flight Club...

  39. Still plenty of space on the 'B' Ark by maroberts · · Score: 1

    /hhgttg

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  40. Hitchhiking to Mars by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Didn't the Hitchhiker Guide have an episode in which the all the middle-managers were sent on the first space ship and the rest of the people were to follow? Ha...

    1. Re:Hitchhiking to Mars by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Yes it did, and these people ended up being the only survivors of their civilization.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Hitchhiking to Mars by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      IIRC they sent the phone sanitizers on the "B" ship and all the elites on the "A" ship died from infections they got from using the phones.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  41. I'd go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd go to Mars, but their reality-TV process is offputting.

    1. Re:I'd go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVbnRbTi5XA

  42. Brokeback #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone notice the extremely high male to female ratio?

    1. Re:Brokeback #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who cant seem to get laid, your odds are greatly increased, heres the link http://applicants.mars-one.com/overview/newest/desc/2?sex=FEMALE&minimumAge=&maximumAge=&country=&language=&rating= (im to lazy to format)

  43. Perhaps Afsluitdijk Dike? by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    Assuming that the calculation in the summary is accurate (which is just as valid as assuming a given country) we are looking for a location that has a coast to coast distance of between 30 and 40 km.

    WELL if we want to get in the business of apologetic measurements, I believe Mars One is based in the Netherlands. So assuming that back of an envelope calculation was being applied to the location of operations, we could assume they are referring to the inverted shores that are the endpoints of Afsluitdijk Dike which happen to connect North Holland province with Friesland province and measures 32 kilometers in length.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  44. NASA: 6300, Mars One 78,000 - game, set & matc by thAMESresearcher · · Score: 1

    NASA had 6300 applications on their latest call for astronauts, Mars One receives 78,000 in just two weeks? Guess people are more excited about Mars exploration than comet capture after all. Who would have guessed.

  45. B Ark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just smaller than originally envisioned...

    PS - captcha: disturbs

  46. Death by phorm · · Score: 1

    Well, technically they'll die on Earth as well.
    Really, it's a matter of timelines.

    If they had a real plan to start a self-supporting Mars colony (or at least self-supporting within a timeline when aid of some sort could be sent), I wouldn't see a big issue with that. Not much different from the early exploration/colonial days.

  47. Re:NASA: 6300, Mars One 78,000 - game, set & m by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    Self disqualification is much higher for Nasa then for a T.V. show?

    But seriously I thought you had to actually be a pilot in the air force or hold some similarly rigorous qualifications to apply to Nasa's astronaut program.

    The reality is according to the standards set forth there are just not that many people who can be Astronauts and this makes sense.

  48. Gratuitous Lawyer Joke by jasnw · · Score: 1

    A take on a oldie-but-goodie : What do you call 500 lawyers sent on a one-way missions to Mars? A good start.

  49. Are these people even real? by axl917 · · Score: 1

    Sort the videos by rating, 4 of the top 5 are 20-something women, such as Ilona from Finland. Her bio reads;

    I'm a critically discerning cosmopolitan, identifying with a variety of roles and yet very few. As a bookish diplomat by nature, I choose to leave my heart and mind open and listen to the sounds of the world. I aim to live a long, hearty life, only rich in experience and knowledge, fueled by ideas, inspiration and questions. Beauty lies in human achievement. Through my person, I want to portray a generation of our time, a truly universal one, bold and borderless but not detached from its roots.

    maybe I'm just a cranky old codger, but that sounds a lot like the vapid, not-really-saying-anything "hi I saw your profile so let's chat" kind of e-mail spam we get all the time.

    1. Re:Are these people even real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get a good job without at least that much vapidity on your resume now adays. And by good job, I mean one in the porn industry. I apologize for the sexism. But this applies equally to both male and female porn stars. As well as parking attendants, and government officials.

    2. Re:Are these people even real? by jeffclay · · Score: 1

      I saw her video. She sounds like the intro voice on Eve Online.

  50. And non-politicians, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you get rid of so many more idiots?

  51. That Awkward Moment by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    When you look around who is seated next to you and realize that the rocket ship you are on only contains politicians and lawyers and in that moment you know it is almost a statistical certitude that A) the ship is headed directly towards the Sun, and B) it has no pilot or controls of any kind.

  52. Bleaker than you think for one more than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people will die eventually.

  53. Won't leave the ship.... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    They won't "voluntarily" leave the ship. Cause that is where their private World of Warcraft server will be.
    How else do you think they go so many volunteers? Bet they promised the "elitist gear", a higher level cap, and a new playable Martian race too.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  54. Mars is decieving by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    We all see those pictures of Mars with a red atmosphere, but the reality isn't just that the atmosphere doesn't have O2 and N2, but that there really isn't much of ANY atmosphere. It's just enough to add color to the photos and move a bit of dust around. Might as well be planning to live on the moon - it's just as habitable but Mars LOOKS more like earth.

    Any plans to terraform it? What life could we actually put there that might survive?

    1. Re:Mars is decieving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, long-term survivability is probably better on Mars than on the moon for a few reasons:

      Gravity is higher on Mars (0.376G as opposed to 0.1654G)
      The day / night cycle is close to Earth's (as opposed to the approximate 14 day / 14 night cycle on the moon)
      Having a tenuous atmosphere at least regulates the temperature better than the moon (80 degrees C on Mars as opposed to the 200+ degrees swing on the moon)
      There is significantly less surface radiation on Mars than on the moon (still higher than Earth, however)
      Having some wind causes the surface to be somewhat weathered so you don't end up with the sharp, jagged pieces micro-dust covering the moon.

      This isn't to say living on Mars would be a piece of cake, however.

    2. Re:Mars is decieving by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Any plans to terraform it? What life could we actually put there that might survive?

      Microbes. Shitloads of them. Let them sort it out between themselves for themselves, a century or so. See what species survive(s). Then add fungus. And so on...

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    3. Re:Mars is decieving by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      Biocontaminating celectial bodies is against international treaties, so no, no plans to terraform Mars. However Mars may already be biocontaminated, probably is, all the probes that went Mars probably took some life along and some may have survived. You dont want to know how many bacteria are actually around(and inside) us all the time, even clean room environment is not totally free of bacteria. And some bacteria can survive incredibly harsh environments, vacuum is not a problem. Luckily Mars is rather desolate place and surviving and thriving are very different things. Some bacteria has probably made it to Mars, but its unlikely that it starts infesting the entire planet. You really wont know until red planet starts turning murky green

    4. Re:Mars is decieving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, long-term survivability is probably better on Mars than on the moon for a few reasons:

      Gravity is higher on Mars (0.376G as opposed to 0.1654G)
      The day / night cycle is close to Earth's (as opposed to the approximate 14 day / 14 night cycle on the moon)
      Having a tenuous atmosphere at least regulates the temperature better than the moon (80 degrees C on Mars as opposed to the 200+ degrees swing on the moon)

      That's less about the tenuous atmosphere and more about the shorter day/night cycle. That and the reduced daytime heating because it's farther away.

      Anyway, you forgot the good bit. Mars is known to have a shit-ton of water -- practically all frozen, but still water. The moon is known to have tiny bits in the deep dark polar crater, because of its ridiculous temperature swings. (Yes, we suspect there may be sub-surface water in ice and/or hydrates in non-polar regions, but we don't know of any.) Water being essential for Terran life, and our "hermetic" biospheres generally being leaky, this alone makes Mars look way way way better.

    5. Re:Mars is decieving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars has liquid water and frozen ice. It has water vapor. And the false color images you get plugged aren't correct. Its quite hospitable.

      http://www.tomatosphere.org/teacher-resources/teachers-guide/grades-8-10/mars-greenhouse.cfm

      Also based on what kids in middle school have in their science textbooks. Plants CAN survive a while on the martian surface in a light greenhouse.

      Nasa is currently working on GMO plants that will adapt better to martian soil conditions.

  55. Mars One For Dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars One = Mars One-Way Trip You Stupid Idiots

  56. Today's - and this week's - best idea by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    Just signed up my worst enemy. Wonder if he will ever realize how, what, why. A foretaste of vengeance remote....

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  57. No one will die on that show by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    It's not dumb, it's fraudulent. They have no intention of actually launching a spacecraft. This is America. Imagine the lawsuits when a crew full of TV stars dies!

    It just doesn't make financial sense when you think about the end game. I am sure their intention to actually launch a spacecraft is every bit as real as the Amish mafia.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  58. Mars Or Bust? by ph4cr · · Score: 1

    I think it very brave for so many to volunteer for a dangerous and technically challenging mission. To kiss earth good bye... The real challenge (based on the volunteer profiles) as I see it is... How will NASA or perhaps a Space Venture Start-up "TRANSPORT MOM'S BASEMENT TO...MARS!"?

  59. Darwin Award by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the most complicated and expensive way of removing oneself from the gene pool.

  60. Genetic legacy... by madmarcel · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure which one bothers me more...

    A) It is a scam. 78000 people fell for it. Thanks for your money.
    or
    B) It is not a scam, but the project never gets anywhere. Thanks for your money.
    or
    C) It is not a scam. They get to Mars. Based on some arbitrary selection process any one of these 78000 people may become responsible for a good part of the genetic makeup of all future Martians...

  61. having had a brief look at the videos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where are all the females?? I think on average 1 in every 3-5 pages has a female entry. Looks like the Mars colony is going to be a giant penis fest.

  62. Taransay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's going to be a reality show like BBC's "Castaway 2000" on Taransay, it's going to be fascinating television to watch! I can't wait!

  63. Mars One = Hunger Games in Disguise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out of thousands, only a few candidates are chosen.
    The trip is a one-way ticket (to die).
    Candidates are sent to an inhospitable environment.
    Candidates must survive on their own or die hungry.
    Candidates are televised 24 hours a day.
    Candidates can be sent care packages from people watching them on TV.
    Candidates are not given weapons, but they are given a 3D printer. *wink wink*.
    Only the strong will survive. The weak will perish.

  64. Just pointing this out... by idbeholda · · Score: 1

    Statistically, most of the applicants are males, and not really too many attractive looking women of the opposite sex. Going to the mars mission is *probably* not going to get you laid, and you'll probably wind up mating every 7 years or so like the Vulcans. Or just using your hand. Even though I'm not one to point fingers, most of the applicants (men AND women) seem to be a little bit psychologically unstable. Quite frankly, I think I would rather be on a single person mission that results in being locked in a decaying orbit around neptune wherein I only have my own thoughts to drive me over the edge, and headfirst into the gaping void of insanity. That's just my two cents, though.

    1. Re:Just pointing this out... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      don't worry about the attractiveness of the women. after a sufficiently long time, with sperm and prostate fluid building and no private place to jack off, they'll start to look better. Gay crewmates of yours will similarly find you looking better. Meanwhile, for those poor women surrounded by ugly geeks, over time and with pent up sexual frustration, they'll consider the geeks as .....an excuse to convert to lesbianism.

  65. I could be the first slashdotter from outer space by jppiiroinen · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is true. I applied. Not sure if I represent us well, but should we (as slashdotters) be worried ;) http://applicants.mars-one.com/profile/6cf2c6c2-0862-4994-a255-8caa980cea85

  66. WORST calculation ever. by mykro76 · · Score: 1

    Let's assume the shortest possible distance, 3,347 km by crow from San Diego, CA to Jacksonville, FL.
    Let them all lie down (1.7m average height) - after all this will take a while.
    And then throw in 40cm between them for comfort.
    You could still fit in 1.5 million people and change, or about the population of Idaho.

  67. 40cm per person? by amdn · · Score: 1

    USA coast to coast great circle distance is about 3,400 kilometers which is 3,400,000 meters or 340,000,000 cm... divided by 78,000 persons is about 4,400 cm per person... or 44 meters... seems someone is off by a factor of 100.

  68. Nothing worth being gained. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the value of sending someone to another planet, when you can't return them? There is no glory for the human race. There won't be any new science, just making temporary use of what we have. So what if someone stands on the planet and says "I was first" just to immediately die. What good does that do for them? And all for money. It makes almost as much sense as watching people beat each other's brains out for money. At least they tend to live through it, though a lot of brain cells died in the process.

    A one way trip is no glory for mankind. A round trip, however, is worth it.

  69. RE: One-way trip to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is all going to end with cannibalism. Bank on it.

  70. First Step by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 1

    Wow, it's going to be amusing to see all the sociopaths on that spacecraft fighting for being the first human on Mars.

  71. mars, love and wtf!!!! by janerules · · Score: 1

    This whole comment thread is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Off Topic.