Surviving Utopia (Planitia)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    Mars One strikes me as a pretty disturbing concept. Like the author of the linked editorial, I like the idea of manned exploration of space but am not quite sure we are ready for this.

    To summarize, Mars One plans to shoot stuff to Mars to set up for their ultimate goal of sending four explorers to the red planet, to land in April of '23. These four will be Martians, they are not expected to return to Earth, which I find a little creepy: imagine spending the rest of your life with 3 other humans, and nowhere to go off to if they piss you off, unless more immigrants can be sent.

    Mars One is a non-profit company that expects their project to cost $6 billion.us, about which I have my doubts (W*Mart spacecraft?). So how to raise this money? TV rights: a sort of reality-TV program, [insert imaginative and clever title here].

    No tax money would be being spent on this, so they have done a nice job of eliminating that complaint. Still, I feel this is too impetuous, the thought of its inevitable demise is more than a little squicky.
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #2
    Nothing that hasn't been done before. Colonists were once dropped off on all kinds of remote shores, supply ship then left, and *hopefully* came back some day. If not....well, sorry guys!

    Humans need to take more exploration risks.
     
  3. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #3
    Yeah, but the difference is that colonists planted in a remote part of the world didn't have to worry about running out of oxygen or being exposed to a lethal dose of radiation.
     
  4. macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #4
    I think this is amazing, actually.

    Though I agree that 4 people is *far* too few. There should be 12 or so, at least.

    Yes, unlike the remote shore example, on Mars you're in an environment that wants you dead.

    But we have to start spreading to other planets eventually. Our governments is too shortsighted to spend money on our future, so let's see if capitalism can do it.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    afireintonto

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    Portland
    #5
    I'm pretty sure they plan on sending 4 more people every two years.
    So the Martian population will grow.
    And the colonists are expected to reproduce.

    I wish I could go. Why die here on earth like everyone else?
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    Who owns Mars?

    The first corporation there?

    That doesn't seem fair or wise.
     
  7. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #7
    Actually, I own Mars. I put in a claim many years ago, and no one challenged it...so it's mine.

    I am in contact with my attorney regarding rent.

    You are on noitce!!
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #8
    Actually, according to the Space Treaty (I think), nobody can claim recognized ownership of Space or any of the Heavenly bodies. They are essentially owned by all for open access. You can claim all you want I suppose, but nobody of any actual importance will recognize your claim - which is important for ownership.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #9
    I would imagine that the people that were on the ships for thousands of miles headed to a "possibility" of land would say that the ocean wanted them dead. The people that explored the polar caps would say that the weather wanted them dead. The people that first climbed Mt. Everest would also say that the mountain wanted them dead. Pretty sure the ocean wanted Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard dead too but they still did it. Lots of things want you dead....bears, tigers, snakes, bugs...just because you can breath doesn't mean a whole lot.

    Think of how safe it would be. No dangerous animals or local people to deal with. :p

    Exploration has danger but every day we turn more and more into a nanny state and try to keep people out of danger.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    Yet extreme sports are all the rage.

    Is your perceived nanny state falling down on the job?
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #11
    "Our future" ??? I think you saw to many crappy SiFi-movies....

    Mars or any other object in the solar system won't help solving any problem we have and might encounter on earth. Going there for exploration might actually advance science, but building a constant colony is 100% pointless.

    @MuddyPaws1

    Well alot of them actually died doing that proving Mr Darwin right I'd say :p There is no good reason going there just like there is no good reason to go to Mars.

    Settlers who 1st went to America or Australia did have the option to live cavemen style, something not possible on Mars.
    The resources needed to build a really self-substaning colony there are mindstaggering (and would still be only good for very few people with no return of investment possible for earth).
     
  12. macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #12
    No return of investment possible?

    How about natural resources? Minerals? Water (if it is indeed water that NASA might have discovered on Mars)?

    Yes, our future. Why wait until we start running out of resources here before expanding out? Sucking Mars dry of resources wouldn't be near as dire as sucking Earth dry.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #13
    Water ????

    You could probraly de-salt all water in the caspian sea with the same amount of energy/resources needed to get 1l of water from Mars to Earth (and things won't look any better for ANY mineral/metal that might be found there).

    For the same reason is there no point to "solve" overpopulation by sending a few 1000 (at best) people there and/or setting up farms up there.

    Heck, even if we had a Cpt. Picard style Enterprise at hand it would probraly still economic unsound....
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #14
    That's as may be. But "do you have a flag?" :)

     
  15. Shrink, Apr 28, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2013

    macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #15
    Of course!!

    What, you think I'm some phony baloney guy making a silly claim!?

    See the flag...and be warned!:eek:
     

    Attached Files:

    • Flag.png
      Flag.png
      File size:
      119.7 KB
      Views:
      13
  16. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #16
    In the foreseeable future, mining Mars for resources is more than a little unrealistic. The mere cost of putting one Kg of anything into space right now is $20K.us, and while it could come down a little, it is not ultimately one of those economy-of-scale things.

    As it stands, with the nature of orbital mechanics, it takes more energy to get a thing inward vs outward in the solar system, so getting stuff from Mars to Earth is even more costly. Even pure U-235, assuming you could ship it in pure form, which is not possible, would not be valuable enough to pay for itself. Adamantium, Unobtanium or Arakeen Melánge could, maybe, break even.

    So, to get a fair RoI, you would have to establish a space-faring society and interplanetary trade, which is more than a century off, if not more. And how an interplanetary economy would work, well, much smarter people than I get headaches trying to imagine it in realistic terms.

    As far as water goes, if we had people living on Mars, I imagine they would want to hang on to every drop they had. The piece linked in the OP indicates that Mars' most valuable export will be Reality TV – yeah, we need more of that :rolleyes:
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    If they can find some constant source of water I'd say it might not be a death sentence. I don't know that I'd want to depend on the backing of a corporation to ensure my supplies come on time. What happens when its not profitable and they decide to cut the plug?
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    Arran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, USA
    #18
    Not a flag to be messed with!

    ----------

    Or government. I'm surprised folks aren't lining up to go.
     
  19. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    If you can find volunteers sure, but what kind of material commitment from Earth will they have? What kind of manufacturing capabilities will they have if any? Will they be in a position to get themselves to a stable self-sustained existence or will they be completely dependent on supplies from Earth? Good luck finding volunteers. ;)

    Can't the first person to step on Mars claim the planet? I need to check with an interstellar lawyer.
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #20
    Interestingly enough, they're called "space lawyers".
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    Mars has some heady dangers. If the life-support system craps out, you're vacuum-sealed freeze-drie vittles for the next set of colonists (ala Jamestown), however, it's a risk worth taking for the right people.

    To push past the bonds of Earth, we have to take risks.

    Simple. Write into the contract a kind of squatters rights for the planet. If the company cuts you off, Mars is yours.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #22
    We just have to somewhat compare it to the colonization of America minus the liveable environement, the help of natives, the fertile ground, abundance of animal meat, oh hell, they're screwed on Mars... :p
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #23
    You guys are right. It's too hard. We should never try anything hard.
     
  24. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    You need to stay more focused on subject.
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #25
    For me, it's not simply because it's hard, it's that it seems incredibly expensive/dangerous for something that is fairly pointless. What is there to gain beside bragging rights? The Mars Rover right now is doing a pretty excellent job of exploring the planet as it is; why do we need to put billions of dollars and endanger lives for the sake of reality TV?

    P-Worm
     

Share This Page