Mars Colony - Page 4

On November 30 2012 17:15 wherebugsgo wrote:
I think that it is far more interesting and fruitful for now to explore what remotely controlled machines can do. The technology can be developed here on Earth and then potentially be deployed in space. Space agencies already do this with rovers, though rovers are merely for exploration and they're not intended to change the landscape significantly. This type of idea has even been explored in science fiction, and it is not particularly novel, but vastly more practical than using human labor. Imagine using a relatively advanced machine or robot of some kind that can either be remotely controlled or is automated. It travels with some essential materials to Mars or the moon or wherever, and then extracts or obtains the rest somehow at the destination. The machine or robot then constructs other machines/robots that can do things like generate power, lift objects, drill, etc. etc. It wouldn't have to be one machine;it could be a series of small machines that each do a different task, either sent all together or on different spaceflights. Using ores on Mars (it's fairly rich in iron oxide, for example) to create things locally without humans would be much more efficient than actually sending trained, willing humans there.

On November 30 2012 17:26 StayPhrosty wrote:
dude i would pay 3 times that to live on mars. Hell, i would become an indentured servant to the freaking company that could put me on mars. The people in this thread saying they wouldn't go are absolutely insane. This would literally be the tipping point for advancing our civilization. Now, whether or not this is feasible (within the next 50 years) is questionable.

To the people saying that nobody could afford a $500 000 ticket, where do you think people live? Honestly, so many middle class homes cost that much, i see absolutely no reason why someone couldn't get a loan. Heck, there are probably enough very rich people who would do this, but I honestly think a ton of upper-middle class families would save up or get a loan and do this.

Also, yes NASA is wasting time, but they have no choice. They have terrible funding from the government and it's only getting worse. The governments of the major nations really need to get behind these space programs. Getting to space affordably is honestly the single most important thing we can do as a society, aside from not killing eachother before we can get out there.

On November 30 2012 19:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Go to mars during your 40s, you'll be assured to get a cancer before your 50s-60s unless the colony is underground or in a cave.

Radiation is a bitch, and there is not much to stop it on Mars. No suit blocks gamma rays, only an atmosphere with a good thickness.

So what's the point to live on another planet if you have to stay underground all the time?

But for just a temporary trip of a few years why not.

On November 30 2012 21:49 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
People forget that the rich and foolish were once the driving force behind our technological development and social progress, that's who produced 90% of the huge scientific work of the 18th and 19th centuries. People who could afford to live on their capital used to invest their time on visionary work, whether that be in science, politics or religion. Pushing the race fowards, in the right or wrong direction. Wrong or no, it was the money they could afford to burn gathering evidence and demonstrating wierd shit that put the big names we talk about in the place they needed to be to do things like calculate the mass of the earth, the distance to the sun, the periodicity and properties of elements, the plate tectonic theory, the theory of natural selection, modern chronometry. All of these had fundamental effects on our perception of our world.

I say don't laugh at the few rich guys left these days who want to try their hand at the same eccentricity, history tells us it will ultimately not be wasted.

On November 29 2012 22:32 Probe1 wrote:
lol this is one of those things you say to a colleague or a friend. There's no way that he could find anywhere near that many eccentric multi-millioniares that wanted to live on Mars. I mean the whole thing sounds like some kind of silly publicity move to push his companies image as a ... OH WAIT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS LOL.

Guy needs to stop this stuff. This is exactly why we need government run space programs. If businesses were accountable like governments I would have no problem but if NASA said something like this I'd be exasperated then assume it was April 1st.

"Let me pull some numbers out of my ass, then pull a number of customers out of my ass, then let's cut it all together and make a press release"

On December 01 2012 00:28 S:klogW wrote:

It's obvious you don't know anything about technology or space programs at all. Private businesses and individuals, especially eccentric and wealthy ones are the people mostly responsible for a lot of the technological developments throughout history. Pyramids? Industrial Revolution? Heliocentric solar system? Nuclear fusion? Name it, and mostly it didn't come from government projects.

On December 01 2012 00:40 Talin wrote:


Oh dear.

First of all, if Pyramids weren't a government project, what is?

It's also kind of easy to support that argument if you put all the individuals into the same basket as people whom this particular initiative is aimed at, ie "everything that isn't government".

On November 30 2012 19:38 HotShizz wrote:


Again, a middle class home may cost that much, but an average mortgage is for 30 years. No one will give someone a loan for a home that cannot be repossessed, where the owner can only be accessed every 4 years, and that after 260 days of travel. I understand if a company were to send agents, but they would have to do the paying, not the person going to live there. And then there would have to be an honest and reasonable excuse for the millions involved in moving to another planet, something I can't see being useful without a workforce or client base. I don't know what kind of industry would benefit enough to compensate costs.

It's a neat idea, it's just not feasible. People, other than curiosity, have no reason to leave, especially when they are reasonably wealthy and comfortable.

On December 01 2012 00:57 S:klogW wrote:

You just became a I-dont-know-anything-about-this-topic-but-im-gonna-reply-anyway with this post.
Seriously? The pyramids are a government project?

Let me brief you about government projects.
Roads: they benefit people by making locations accessible and travel convenient
Zoning codes: makes urban life and geography more systematic and efficient to benefit the people.
Price regulation on basic services: protect the people from unfair business practices

From the examples I gave above, you might notice something that the government is supposed to do: work for the people.
How are pyramids directed towards this goal? Sure the construction of pyramids abused people and their resources, but corruption in government is not the government we are talking about.

On December 01 2012 00:58 Passion wrote:

The only thing is that you'd probably sell your home and everything you have... you don't necessarily need a mortgage. If you imagine that based on one random real estate website, there's 50k houses for sale worth $500.000, only in the Netherlands (which isn't even half a percent of the world population)... With that knowledge, things seem a lot more reasonable, or not?


Of course the Pyramids were a government project. I guess you can compare it to a world exp or something. But the sole ruler of the country; the impersonation of the government; orders a building project. That instantly makes it a government project. You could even say it's like the ultimate government project!

On December 01 2012 01:07 S:klogW wrote:


Logic 101

Government project = benefit people

On December 01 2012 01:09 Talin wrote:


Logic 101

The bane of most logical conclusions is a false premise or assumption.

Just like that one!

On December 01 2012 01:13 S:klogW wrote:


PLEASE, I beg you, do share your knowledge about what government projects are intended for if not to benefit the people in one way or another.

On December 01 2012 01:16 KwarK wrote:

I think the vast majority of people would go with the "projects initiated/managed/financed by the government". The pyramids neatly falls into all three categories. There is no public good test.

On December 01 2012 01:13 S:klogW wrote:


PLEASE, I beg you, do share your knowledge about what government projects are intended for if not to benefit the people in one way or another.

On December 01 2012 01:20 S:klogW wrote:

I fear you have a cynical view of government then. The source of money is merely one dimension of the whole equation, the lesser one actually. The INTENTION of government projects is to fulfill its role to its constituents, or else, any politician can just spend on anything he fancies.

On December 01 2012 01:21 Passion wrote:

Even follow your logic, it can be explained. However a government project has nothing to do with benefiting the people. For every single government project you'll find plenty of people who say this isn't beneficial.

Nevertheless, here we go. You got to realise that the Pharao, the head of state in ancient Egypt, is seen as a demigod or perhaps even more. A critical figure in society, both during his life and thereafter. Therefore, ensuring happiness, also in the afterlife, for this Pharao is of greatest importance to the people of Egypt. Failing to do so might lead to disaster. Hence, the people benefit from this Pyramid. Even with modern knowledge, knowing disaster probably won't strike, one could reason that the psychological benefit to the people is huge. Today we could still imagine a government creating such structure, for mere prestige. What's going on at ground zero to day seems comparable in that sense.

On December 01 2012 01:26 S:klogW wrote:


This is not an argument on politics or one with logical probity, but one of RELIGION! You know, one where anything is possible because something invisible says so. Godd luck with that kind of argument when you reach college.

On December 01 2012 01:31 S:klogW wrote:
Believe me, despite your cynicism, there is at least a functional way to measure whether something benefits the public or not. In fact, there is a specific field of study on this - POLITICS.