Ethical: One way ticket to Mars

2009-09-05 19:30:45

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6549|San Diego, CA, USA

NY Times wrote:
NOW that the hype surrounding the 40th anniversary of the Moon landings has come and gone, we are faced with the grim reality that if we want to send humans back to the Moon the investment is likely to run in excess of $150 billion. The cost to get to Mars could easily be two to four times that, if it is possible at all.

...

There is, however, a way to surmount this problem while reducing the cost and technical requirements, but it demands that we ask this vexing question: Why are we so interested in bringing the Mars astronauts home again?

While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return is jarring upon first hearing, the rationale for one-way trips into space has both historical and practical roots. Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway. Give us a century or two and we may turn the whole planet into a place from which many people might be happy to depart.

This one got me thinking.

2009-09-05 19:33:05

#2

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6529|Global Command

So, with the same amount of money given to AIG and Wamu we could get to Mars.

2009-09-05 19:52:54

#3

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6149|'straya

If the astronauts go by their 100% free will then go for it. It makes sense to me. We've raped and pillaged our planet so why not rape and pillage some more.

2009-09-05 20:47:53

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6405|North Carolina

ATG wrote:
So, with the same amount of money given to AIG and Wamu we could get to Mars.

Sadly....

2009-09-05 21:25:52

#5

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6411|'Murka

ATG wrote:
So, with the same amount of money given to AIG and Wamu we could get to Mars.

Those that scream about the cost won't even realize the hypocrisy of that.

And we'd end up with far more to show for it than we will from AIG or WAMU.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-05 21:43:27

#6

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|5999|The Mitten

At first, I thought you were thinking Mars would be the new Australia.....

EE (hats

2009-09-05 22:11:08

#7

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Of course it is going to be a one way trip. The feasibility is absolutely nil otherwise.

Really the psychology of the trip is at least as interesting as the technical aspects. One person, a team, mixed gender, no communication with earth, steady news updates, etc.

2009-09-05 22:14:09

#8

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6153|what

Why does it need to be manned? We've got the technology to land rovers, etc on the surface and then beam back information.

A human cargo does nothing but create further logistical problems, like food and water and other weight considerations which increase the price of take off.

They are a burden more than anything else.

Morpheus wrote:
At first, I thought you were thinking Mars would be the new Australia.....

Except Mars might be a benefit to mankind?

ba-dum-tish

2009-09-05 22:26:51

#9

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|5999|The Mitten

AussieReaper wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
At first, I thought you were thinking Mars would be the new Australia.....
Except Mars might be a benefit to mankind?

ba-dum-tish

OH SNAP

but seriously. Might actually be a good deterrent? Plus, non of that homicidal maniac getting off in 3 years due to good behavior....
Plus, with the current penal budget, you might be able to do it.....

EE (hats

2009-09-05 22:35:14

#10

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6153|what

Morpheus wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
At first, I thought you were thinking Mars would be the new Australia.....
Except Mars might be a benefit to mankind?

ba-dum-tish
OH SNAP

but seriously. Might actually be a good deterrent? Plus, non of that homicidal maniac getting off in 3 years due to good behavior....
Plus, with the current penal budget, you might be able to do it.....

Crematoria:

2009-09-06 10:19:52

#11

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Because Aussie, no robot can problem solve, troubleshoot, or most importantly think like a human.

We have been sending rovers, we know we can, it is not enough.

2009-09-06 10:30:45

#12

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6621|London, England

Harmor wrote:
While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return is jarring upon first hearing, the rationale for one-way trips into space has both historical and practical roots. Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway

Why the hell is this in DAST. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life. I actually feel violated reading that

I can't beleive you guys are even discussing it. I guess many of you don't realise Mars isn't exactly like the Americas or Australia. Yeah, it's actually a different planet infact.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-09-06 10:32:09)

2009-09-06 11:04:18

#13

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6649

Fuck America, I'd much rather live on a planet where I could never go outside without a space suit and there's fuck all to see except for red dust.

2009-09-06 11:10:30

#14

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|5999|The Mitten

Lai wrote:
Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
If the astronauts go by their 100% free will then go for it. It makes sense to me. We've raped and pillaged our planet so why not rape and pillage some more.
Morpheus wrote:
At first, I thought you were thinking Mars would be the new Australia.....
You mean a penal colony for rapists and such?

Yea...

I wrote:
Plus, non of that homicidal maniac getting off in 3 years due to good behavior....
Plus, with the current penal budget, you might be able to do it.....

EE (hats

2009-09-06 11:29:20

#15

xxCaptainBlackxx: ♥♦♣♠♥♦♣; +47|6644|internet

ghettoperson wrote:
Fuck America, I'd much rather live on a planet where I could never go outside without a space suit and there's fuck all to see except for red dust.

If you can live without girls,beer and bunch of stupid people go for it!
just let me know when you're ready i have some explosives in my backyard which can send you not only to the moon or mars but to the other universe as well

2009-09-06 11:56:31

#16

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6649

xxCaptainBlackxx wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
Fuck America, I'd much rather live on a planet where I could never go outside without a space suit and there's fuck all to see except for red dust.
If you can live without girls,beer and bunch of stupid people go for it!
just let me know when you're ready i have some explosives in my backyard which can send you not only to the moon or mars but to the other universe as well

I was joking.

2009-09-06 11:59:03

#17

d4rkph03n1x: Member; +131|6750

Send some poor bastards to go and die for what? We clearly don't have the technology to do anything useful over there, like terraforming, and I'm sure they'll go insane within a year (provided they have enough oxygen). Why not spend the money on fixing our world first before getting busy with another.

2009-09-06 15:06:01

#18

Lai: Member; +186|6151

d4rkph03n1x wrote:
Send some poor bastards to go and die for what? We clearly don't have the technology to do anything useful over there, like terraforming, and I'm sure they'll go insane within a year (provided they have enough oxygen). Why not spend the money on fixing our world first before getting busy with another.

Because our world is already FUBAR!

2009-09-06 15:28:51

#19

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6581|the dank(super) side of Oregon

mars is dead, and without a magnetic field it will always be dead. We're about 4.5 billions years too late. If we're looking for another planet to inhabit it may as well be the moon.

2009-09-06 15:29:38

#20

Hakei: Banned; +295|5995

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course it is going to be a one way trip. The feasibility is absolutely nil otherwise.

Really the psychology of the trip is at least as interesting as the technical aspects. One person, a team, mixed gender, no communication with earth, steady news updates, etc.

Why so? As in, nil of returning.

2009-09-06 15:46:07

#21

menzo: ̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#; +616|6446|Amsterdam‫

i've read , the minimal stay time is 13months

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png

2009-09-06 16:30:21

#22

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6707|67.222.138.85

Hakei wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course it is going to be a one way trip. The feasibility is absolutely nil otherwise.

Really the psychology of the trip is at least as interesting as the technical aspects. One person, a team, mixed gender, no communication with earth, steady news updates, etc.
Why so? As in, nil of returning.

Because you have to construct a vehicle that can exit Earth's gravity well, get to Mars in a timely fashion, make a smooth landing on Mars, exit Mars' gravity well, and return to Earth.

Fuel cost is ridiculous, stress on the vehicle is intense, diversity is unreasonable.

2009-09-07 02:31:58

#23

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

FM wrote:
Because you have to construct a vehicle that can exit Earth's gravity well

Any Mars mission would most likely be launched from earth orbit using a vehicle assembled there.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2009-09-07 02:47:35

#24

Hakei: Banned; +295|5995

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Hakei wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Of course it is going to be a one way trip. The feasibility is absolutely nil otherwise.

Really the psychology of the trip is at least as interesting as the technical aspects. One person, a team, mixed gender, no communication with earth, steady news updates, etc.
Why so? As in, nil of returning.
Because you have to construct a vehicle that can exit Earth's gravity well, get to Mars in a timely fashion, make a smooth landing on Mars, exit Mars' gravity well, and return to Earth.

Fuel cost is ridiculous, stress on the vehicle is intense, diversity is unreasonable.

How is it any different from landing on the moon? They have basically the same mass hence the gravity to escape.

2009-09-07 04:29:27

#25

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6675|Canberra, AUS

Hakei wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Hakei wrote:

Why so? As in, nil of returning.
Because you have to construct a vehicle that can exit Earth's gravity well, get to Mars in a timely fashion, make a smooth landing on Mars, exit Mars' gravity well, and return to Earth.

Fuel cost is ridiculous, stress on the vehicle is intense, diversity is unreasonable.
How is it any different from landing on the moon? They have basically the same mass hence the gravity to escape.

Um... no, not really.

Really, no. No. No. No.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums Ethical: One way ticket to Mars

NY Times wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Lai wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

I wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

xxCaptainBlackxx wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

d4rkph03n1x wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FM wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Board footer