Mars One. How many of you think it will work?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Now, if Mar's atmosphere could be plausibly terraformed, yes, I would definitely be in favor of it.

But terraforming is impossible! Like, from the Industrial revolution and all of the CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere, that's just a fraction of what would be needed to terraform Mars.

Even beyond the volume of gases required it's impossible because mars core long ago lost it's dynamo effect such that it doesn't produce a magnetic field like Earth's core. Therefore no protection from solar wind = bye bye any atmosphere we try to produce.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
Nah. You'd just need a small room completely lined with HD OLED screens and whatever is the latest and greatest speaker and sound output. An entire generation of MMORPG players would gladly take the trip to Mars.

It would also help if a masseuse/therapist went along.
....You know, that might not be good.


"Nah, I'm not going outside. I didn't like going outside before, and now going outside means I have to put on a bulky suit or I'll suffocate. Nope, I'm good in here."




Exactly. The man on Mars is so 1950s.

Just please someone go icedrill on Europa and tell us if other life exists in our solar system before I die!
I would love to see this.

I don't know how that would go down though. What I've read is that really sterilizing a space probe is damn difficult; bacteria are absolutely everywhere.


Drill down, and five hitchhiking spores suddenly find themselves immersed in lukewarm nutrient-rich water.

Oops.




Even beyond the volume of gases required it's impossible because mars core long ago lost it's dynamo effect such that it doesn't produce a magnetic field like Earth's core. Therefore no protection from solar wind = bye bye any atmosphere we try to produce.
Unless it can be replenished continually, or protected in another manner.
 
Last edited:

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Even beyond the volume of gases required it's impossible because mars core long ago lost it's dynamo effect such that it doesn't produce a magnetic field like Earth's core. Therefore no protection from solar wind = bye bye any atmosphere we try to produce.

We should setup massive EM generators on Phobos and Deimos.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
no

they want to do it in 10 years when other private corporations and governments are not even thinking about it

also they want to do a one way trip right?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
I admit I do find Mars to be pretty boring, but it is pretty much the only possible path in my lifetime. It does seem odd that before going to Mars, you wouldn't try putting a colony on the moon first just to get the process down, but if it's a race to put the first human on another planet, more power to them. A flame behind someones butt is what is needed to make progress.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
My understanding is the chance of survival just making the trip will be a major feat....let alone actually landing on the surface then surviving there.
+1

Would be interesting to watch I guess, but....

The moon as a base station would make more sense.

It's more like walking into your backyard vs walking 10000 miles more or less in an airless, hostile environment.

The math I haven't done, just an analogy.
 
Last edited:

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
+1 Would be interesting to watch I guess, but.... The moon as a base station would make more sense. It's more like walking into your backyard vs walking 10000 miles more or less in an airless, hostile environment. The math I haven't done, just an analogy.

business interests are trying to prevent any government programs to the moon so they can have it to themselves

not only are they trying to break the un convention which prevents any claims on the moon but they also want all the resources
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
If video games and movies have taught me anything, it's no matter where you go in space:

Aliens always want to kill you or want to invade Earth.
Radiation will kill/mutate you
You always run out of oxygen when you need it most
Ships computers are unreliable and can't be trusted
Weightlessness is fun until you are trying to run away from all the things trying to kill you.
Humans are still our worst enemy
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,893
5,524
136
Well, the hope is that there wouldnt be a terrible death, but of course it's a possibility. As there was during Apollo. The people that sign up for it know this, and I dont think anyone is rooting for disaster.

I guess my sense from this project is that the aim IS to get to Mars, not to create some sordid drama. That's why I'm in support of it.

Reality is it's a one way trip. The people they send will die, and while old age would be a good cause of death, it's almost certain that won't be what does them in. That doesn't sound like good tv to me. On the plus side, that ship is going to have to be huge, and it's going to be cool as shit watching them build it in orbit.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Reality is it's a one way trip. The people they send will die, and while old age would be a good cause of death, it's almost certain that won't be what does them in. That doesn't sound like good tv to me. On the plus side, that ship is going to have to be huge, and it's going to be cool as shit watching them build it in orbit.

People will spend money to see brave people struggle and when they die those who passed on will be missed. Can we do that again? That was awesome.

The people going might as well be followers of this savior of mankind.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
I can't be the only person who read the OP and was still thinking, "huh?" I thought Mars One would be some elaborate type of landing system - parachutes, retro rockets, flying crane, etc., like the last successful Mars landing.

And that's the problem with landing on Mars, it's big enough to deal with it's gravity but the atmosphere is so thin you need a sophisticated rocket system to slow decent. Then you've got the problem of consumables, air, water, food all relying on vehicles sent from Earth and globally we have a dismal record of many failures trying to land there, then the final and worst problem, HOW TO GET THE FUCK BACK HOME. Just send more rovers and such, they can gather all the data you need without the huge hassle of maintaining life support for the long journey back and forth.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
So, we shouldnt have gone to the moon either?

I'd say that even if there was not a direct, amazing discovery, it would still be worth it. Because....well, because. Because humans are curious. Because it's there. Because it would be amazing.

Well we had to plant our flag and gather samples, but after that it was a little redundant and expensive.
 

Albatross

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2001
2,344
8
81
Well it`s a massive fraud,create a show,make money from publicity and bolt when the time comes.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
....You know, that might not be good. "Nah, I'm not going outside. I didn't like going outside before, and now going outside means I have to put on a bulky suit or I'll suffocate. Nope, I'm good in here."

add to that needing to be underground a lot of the time for radiation
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
754
142
106
We already know so much about Mars. There seems like so many other, more pressing things the money could go to. What can sending a human there bring to the table?

You're right, screw progress and interstellar colonization. Spend more on welfare for the people who make it dangerous to walk city streets at night!

I was a bit nasty with that. Pragmatically, I see your point. We'll need support from more than just idealists.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
You're right, screw progress and interstellar colonization. Spend more on welfare for the people who make it dangerous to walk city streets at night!

I was a bit nasty with that. Pragmatically, I see your point. We'll need support from more than just idealists.

"Interstellar colonization"?, the nearest solar system is 4 LIGHT YEARS away, there will be no "Interstellar colonization", ever.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
"Interstellar colonization"?, the nearest solar system is 4 LIGHT YEARS away, there will be no "Interstellar colonization", ever.

Because everything that has ever been invented has already been invented. No more need to improve or strive for anything else again, ever. :rolleyes:

ATOT's scientific expertise is worth as much as the Ordained minister certificate I bought off the Internet.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
"Interstellar colonization"?, the nearest solar system is 4 LIGHT YEARS away, there will be no "Interstellar colonization", ever.
Realistic androids + sperm + eggs + artificial wombs + Project Longshot.

Sure, anything like that is many many decades away, but not I wouldn't put it in the "will never happen" category.


Lasers and billion-transistor computers that can be comfortably held in your hand were also impossible, and that was just in the 20th century.



It would be good just from the standpoint of self-preservation. In Earth's history, there are times when either it, or some asteroid, decides "Life sucks! KILL KILL KILL!!!!" There's a dramatic environmental change, and >90% of all life dies.
I'd rather not have to squeeze our species through a second genetic bottleneck and hope it all turns out. We won't be able to shag any Neanderthals this time to help mix things up.
 
Last edited: