People On Mars in 2023?

Pushtrak

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/mars-one-plans-human-colonization-of-mars-by-april-2023/

While we dream about living or visiting a Martian planet, Mars One is executing the most ambitious privately funded space mission yet. The company has set a deadline for April 2023, the month that a human being will first set foot onto Mars.


With NASA’s budget cut, privatized space travel has become the next frontier for wealthy businessmen with dreams of becoming the real-life Tony Stark. Among the dreamers, there are some that are acting out on loftier ambitions. Forget the moon; the team from the Mars One project is setting out to make the colonization of Mars a reality.

The private Dutch company Mars One has set an ambitious deadline for the first permanent Mars colony: April 2023. For those who opt to settle on Mars, there will be no turning back. Their residence on the dusty planet would be permanent, although every two years, the established colony would welcome new residents, thereby slowly growing the Mars-based community.

Mars One initially plans to send over four astronauts in a journey that will take a mind-numbing seven months. Come 2033, the program hopes to have over 20 astronauts living on Mars.

If you’re skeptical about Mars One’s plans, you should be, but the project has the backing of the 1999 Physics Nobel Prize winner, Professor Dr. Gerard T Hooft, and the interest of several major privately operated commercial space corporations and suppliers that are capable of building the equipment and gear necessary to make the mission a success.

“This is going to be private enterprise, only private firms are going to contribute. No political mumbo-jumbo, no tax-payer’s money will be involved,” Dr. Hooft said in a statement.

The plan will begin only four years from now in 2016, when a communications satellite and a supply mission will be sent to Mars. Come 2018, a rover will be transported to Mars with the purpose of seeking an ideal location and best living condition to prepare for the permanent human settlement on the red planet. On 2020, the living capsules, supplies, life support unit and a rover tasked with reassembling the settlement components will be sent to Mars, preparing the colony for habitation. The first four astronauts will begin their journey on September 2022, landing on the planet on April of 2023.

Mars One plans on funding the continuous mission through a media spectacle that will allow anyone to stream and monitor the progress. In other words, such a widely publicized event would be prime real estate for advertisers and sponsors.

The aspiration is lofty, but private exploration is taking off — literally. Just last month, the privately built and launched Space X Dragon capsule was able to link with the International Space Station. Private corporations like Virgin Galactic, Space X and even Red Bull are racing to become the next household name that children will be talking about for generations to come.

Check out Mars One’s video below and let us know in the comments below if you’d be willing to leave the comforts of Earth to spend the rest of your life on a Martian planet.

More @ http://mars-one.com/

So, they're planning on 4 in 2023, and to have 20 up there in 2033. I'm not going to speak on the likelihood of them making the 2023 date, but the point I will make is it seems 10 years on, maybe they ought to be hoping for more than that to be up on Mars?

Being on another planet would be quite an experience, but being one of the early adopters, so to speak, one of those astronauts.. It'd be quite something to adapt to. Going on a one way journey somewhere, well, the precise 4 that would go up would have to be chosen. They will only have each other to "entertain" each other.

MisterEpicurus

And?

Pushtrak

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

And?

Oh, nothing, just a story about a walk to the park.

General Relativity

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

And?

And you'll be alive to see us take our first baby steps into the Universe. Count yourself among the lucky. We only learned to fly ~110 years ago.

some random drunk

I wonder what they would do if one of the astronauts got pregnant? Be best to send 4 gay astronauts perhaps?

Pushtrak

some random drunk wrote: »

I wonder what they would do if one of the astronauts got pregnant? Be best to send 4 gay astronauts perhaps?

On the contrary, I think they should plan for pregnancy and kids. This is a colonizing effort, remember. Not going to get far with 4 people who aren't going to conceive children. At some point, children will have to be born. Granted, it doesn't necessarily have to start with the first trip. But why shouldn't it?

Edit: Obviously, some prudence and not being preggers day one would be wise.

af_thefragile

NASA was all geared up for Moon landings, setting a moon base and a Mars mission too with the Constellation Program.

Then Obama decided he needed more money to kill people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and that was obviously more important than any sorta pointless space travel and hence yeah, it's gonna be a long time before we'll be going back to the moon and beyond again...

eth0

pushing out children over there is cheaper than flying them over

Pushtrak

af_thefragile wrote: »

Then Obama decided he needed more money to kill people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and that was obviously more important than any sorta pointless space travel and hence yeah, it's gonna be a long time before we'll be going back to the moon and beyond again...

The NASA budget has been on a decline for the last 10 years. This isn't an issue new to the U.S with Obama.

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

And when Obama got in to office, the States was in financial ruin. He was hardly going to reverse the trend, for instance.

Bruthal

eth0 wrote: »

pushing out children over there is cheaper than flying them over

Saves having to listen to "are we there yet" for 7 months as well.

ha ha hello

I'd say it will be at least the 2070's before a man sets foot on mars..

and i base that on nothing other than gut feeling, before anyone asks!

yeppydeppy

"Mind numbing seven months" - what? It used to take over 8 months to get to Australia in the days of yore. The journey isn't the problem here, it's the fact that it's a one way ticket to spend the rest of your life living in a pressurised can. No outdoors of any kind ever again, they'll go mental. Plus I can't see a private company doing this in 11.5 years - must be just marketing.

smellslikeshoes

This isn't actually as far fetched as it seems, if you take out the need for getting the people back it makes things much simpler. Sure there is the issue of getting regular supplies to mars to keep people alive but that is something that can be overcome, especially if they can be self sufficient in certain areas.

Jester252

Would anybody here go? I might

Pushtrak

Jester252 wrote: »

Would anybody here go? I might

It'll be only astronauts for quite a while, it seems. I don't think commercial plans would really be established until probably 2040 or 2050 even granting them getting their first stage part on schedule.

MisterEpicurus

General Relativity wrote: »

And you'll be alive to see us take our first baby steps into the Universe. Count yourself among the lucky. We only learned to fly ~110 years ago.

I'm all for science, but only science that gains us knowledge. How exactly do we benefit from taking the risk of sending individuals to Mars?

I think it's just an ego trip.

Dave0301

In fairness the economy on Mars in 2023 will probably be in better shape than Ireland....

More job opportunities too

that is so cool

Bruthal

Jester252 wrote: »

Would anybody here go? I might

I find being stuck on the M50 for an hour bad enough, I`d say there would be plenty of takers for it though.

Pushtrak

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'm all for science, but only science that gains us knowledge. How exactly do we benefit from taking the risk of sending individuals to Mars?

I think it's just an ego trip.

Do you not think there is any knowledge to be gained from in depth analysis of Mars? I'd have thought that it would be obvious that we'd want to know as much about other planets as possible. Also, would be great to establish telescope arrays on Mars given time. Again, something that seems obvious to me.

Dave0301

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'm all for science, but only science that gains us knowledge. How exactly do we benefit from taking the risk of sending individuals to Mars?

I think it's just an ego trip.

The first human colonization of another planet, to see if it is possible, to see can humans survive like that. Long term it could be a first step for space exploration. I mean very long term however!!

Bruthal

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'm all for science, but only science that gains us knowledge. How exactly do we benefit from taking the risk of sending individuals to Mars?

I think it's just an ego trip.

The first flight attempts must have been risky too, and possibly seemed of little benefit to many.

southcentralts

what a crap internet connection they will have - forget about downloading porn!

shizz

Haven't watched the video but the timeline is the thing that really stands out to me. What are they planning on using to send everything? I presume they will have to use someone else's gear and aren't planning on developing a launch and delivery system themselves?

clintondaly

I bet when they do get there McDonalds will have already built a drive through and there will be an Irish lad walking towards them in his County colours

Bruthal

southcentralts wrote: »

what a crap internet connection they will have - forget about downloading porn!

They can use meteor, it will probably work better there than here.

Pushtrak

shizz wrote: »

Haven't watched the video but the timeline is the thing that really stands out to me. What are they planning on using to send everything? I presume they will have to use someone else's gear and aren't planning on developing a launch and delivery system themselves?

They go in to that type of stuff: http://mars-one.com/mission/technology

General Relativity

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

I'm all for science, but only science that gains us knowledge. How exactly do we benefit from taking the risk of sending individuals to Mars?

I think it's just an ego trip.

This implies that there are two types of Science; one that delivers knowledge and another that ????

It forces us to devolop new technology to get their in the first place. This snowballs and allows us to go further and further.

Kev_2012

Atheist Heli-Cats on Mars by 2038

MisterEpicurus

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you not think there is any knowledge to be gained from in depth analysis of Mars? I'd have thought that it would be obvious that we'd want to know as much about other planets as possible. Also, would be great to establish telescope arrays on Mars given time. Again, something that seems obvious to me.

Of course I'm aware of these benefits, but my point is...would it not be better to have sophisticated robots perform these jobs?

Mickeroo

I really hope this happens in my lifetime. Once the colony is established then they can work on a some way of allowing people to travel back and forth.

Imagine the headlines when the first martian human is born

shizz

Pushtrak wrote: »

They go in to that type of stuff: http://mars-one.com/mission/technology

Thanks man. I thought SpaceX might be involved. Elon talked about how he wanted to help the human race colonize Mars, I wonder if he has a big part to play in this or has he plans of his own?

seamus

There are probably as many ethical issues as there are technical ones:

Imagine one of the settlers is struck down with MNS after arriving. Eventually they will be incapable of moving about the colony. What then, do the others look after them? Since they wouldn't be under any jurisdiction, euthanasia is not an issue, however what if the person doesn't want to die? Having a permanently incapacitated person to look after would be a major resource drain for the other 3 people (not to mention a disaster with the loss of skills). The terminally-ill person choosing to live may even put the survival of the other 3 in jeopardy. Do you require them to commit suicide?

Though on the flipside, provided that everyone is thoroughly screened and the equipment properly sterlised before they leave, simple diseases like colds and 'flu wouldn't exist in the colony, not to mention STDs.

Pushtrak

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Of course I'm aware of these benefits, but my point is...would it not be better to have sophisticated robots perform these jobs?

You don't colonize a planet with robots. At least, so say sci-fi movies.

Mickeroo

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Of course I'm aware of these benefits, but my point is...would it not be better to have sophisticated robots perform these jobs?

possibly, but I would imagine a colony of humans would be able to find things out much quicker.

MisterEpicurus

General Relativity wrote: »

This implies that there are two types of Science; one that delivers knowledge and another that ????

It forces us to devolop new technology to get their in the first place. This snowballs and allows us to go further and further.

By that I meant, I don't see the point of using science to satisfy the ego's of people. Knowledge gained through robots seems better to start with and you can still develop the same technology through this method.
I phrased it bad above, I agree... :rolleyes:

MisterEpicurus

Pushtrak wrote: »

You don't colonize a planet with robots. At least, so say sci-fi movies.

Let's be honest - we're not ever going to colonize Mars. It's completely uninhabitable. And where else are we supposed to colonise? We're not going to get to the nearest galaxy even with the best technology. Plus, I'm ignoring all that hocus pocus of wormholes, sounds like bull to me when I read it.

Pushtrak

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Let's be honest - we're not ever going to colonize Mars. It's completely uninhabitable. And where else are we supposed to colonise? We're not going to get to the nearest galaxy even with the best technology. Plus, I'm ignoring all that hocus pocus of wormholes, sounds like bull to me when I read it.

http://mars-one.com/faq-en/22-faq-mission-features/199-why-mars-why-not-another-planet

After the Earth, Mars is the most habitable planet in our solar system. Its soil contains water and it isn't too cold or too hot. There is enough sunlight to charge solar panels and its gravity is 40% that of our Earth's, which is most probably sufficient for the human body to cope with healthily. It has an atmosphere, albeit a thin one, that offers protection from cosmic and the Sun's radiation. An important point is also the day/night rhythm, which is very similar to ours here on Earth: a Mars day is 24 hours and all of 37 minutes.

The only other two celestial bodies close enough are our Moon and Venus. There are far fewer nutrients and vital elements on the Moon, and a Moon day takes, well, a month. It also does not have an atmosphere to form a barrier against radiation. Venus is an veritable purgatory. The average temperature is over 400 degrees, the barometric pressure is that of 90 meters underwater on Earth, and the cherry on top comes in the form of occasional bouts of acid rain. It also has nights that last for 120 days. Humans cannot live on Mars without the help of technology, but compared to Venus it's paradise!

Edit: I'm not going to be on for a while, so will not be able to respond.

Bad Panda

I wonder where they'll film it this time...

shizz

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Let's be honest - we're not ever going to colonize Mars. It's completely uninhabitable. And where else are we supposed to colonise? We're not going to get to the nearest galaxy even with the best technology. Plus, I'm ignoring all that hocus pocus of wormholes, sounds like bull to me when I read it.

It is uninhabitable but the reality is we have the technology now to make it habitable for humans (not talking about changing the environment).

I understand what you are saying but why would we need to go to another Galaxy to find a habitable planet?

Mickeroo

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Let's be honest - we're not ever going to colonize Mars. It's completely uninhabitable. And where else are we supposed to colonise? We're not going to get to the nearest galaxy even with the best technology. Plus, I'm ignoring all that hocus pocus of wormholes, sounds like bull to me when I read it.

I don't really think there's much of a limit to what the human race can achieve provided it manages to survive long enough. A colony on mars seems more possible to me than landing on the moon would have to a person in the 1800s. A research colony though, a fully functioning society would be a much longer way off I'd imagine, realistically you'd have to go down the road of terraforming for that to happen.

hooradiation

seamus wrote: »

Though on the flipside, provided that everyone is thoroughly screened and the equipment properly sterlised before they leave, simple diseases like colds and 'flu wouldn't exist in the colony, not to mention STDs.

Oh, they'll just breed their own variants. Our grandchildren will have to deal with the shame of going to the doctors because they caught the space aids from one of those triple breasted Martian whores.....

brave new world and all that.

MisterEpicurus

Yup - I've no problem agreeing to that post Pushtrak. It merely suggests it's more habitable than any other, not necessarily habitable in any sense. What would be required is terraforming Mars in some way.

So if I was 200lbs, I'd weigh 75lbs on Mars.
An average 11st individual would weigh less than 4st...

And combined with the lack of sunlight (and it isa lack because panels would be required, how many, millions?) doesn't make it sound very habitable to me. Combining this with the length of time it would take to terraform Mars makes it seem ambitious at best. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say if it's unattainable, it just appears to be at the outset.

General Relativity

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

By that I meant, I don't see the point of using science to satisfy the ego's of people. Knowledge gained through robots seems better to start with and you can still develop the same technology through this method.
I phrased it bad above, I agree... :rolleyes:

The whole reason we do anything is because we can, to satisfy ourselves. We're only talking about Mars because we've been to the Moon to satisfy our egos. 'We'll do it, not because it is easy but because it is hard'

We've already been to Mars with robots, 5 times, 2 Russian (that failed) and 3 American. Another US rover is set to land in the next few months. It's time for us to go there.

hardCopy

I'm a bit confused as to why people would go. People usually explore for some sort of gain, e.g. Columbus seeking new spice routes, pilgrims seeking new lands free from persecution in America, prospectors seeking gold in the American West.

If there is no way to live outside a bubble then the first residents will have a worse quality of life than at home, and if they can't return then they can't export, and even if they could export they'd have nothing to spend their money on.

I don't see land being scarce enough for people to want to move there rather than try to reclaim desert or sea here on Earth.

I wonder if Steorn will be involved in fuelling the ships.

I could see the case for it if we found unobtanium there and had a way to retrieve it or if Earth was completely overcrowded.

shizz

hardCopy wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to why people would go. People usually explore for some sort of gain, e.g. Columbus seeking new spice routes, pilgrims seeking new lands free from persecution in America, prospectors seeking gold in the American West.

If there is no way to live outside a bubble then the first residents will have a worse quality of life than at home, and if they can't return then they can't export, and even if they could export they'd have nothing to spend their money on.

I don't see land being scarce enough for people to want to move there rather than try to reclaim desert or sea here on Earth.

I wonder if Steorn will be involved in fuelling the ships.

I could see the case for it if we found unobtanium there and had a way to retrieve it or if Earth was completely overcrowded.

Steorn? Why them?

Also you can't try and fit this sort of exploration with one like Columbus because it's simply for completely different reasons. The safety of our species and the continuation of scientific discovery.

Micky Dolenz

They best get a move on. It's past 1800 now.

MisterEpicurus

shizz wrote: »

The safety of our species and the continuation of scientific discovery.

Don't forget, according to some this world is fine-tuned for existence. Only 2,000 years after the death of Christ and we are already planning potential colonization plans. Shoots their argument in the foot (or maybe nail in the hand). :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Nah, it'll never happen.

I can't see An Taisce giving planning permission on mars

Sarky

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Of course I'm aware of these benefits, but my point is...would it not be better to have sophisticated robots perform these jobs?

Robots can only do so much. They have to be terribly well-designed to contain tools and laboratory for everything people want them to do. If they break down, you have to send another one. With humans on Mars, they have instant access to results, if something malfunctions they can fix it on the fly, and they can start a new experiment as soon as they've done the old one, no more waiting months or years to send and receive data, no hoping the robot's batteries don't blow up, no abandoning the whole thing if the robot accidentally steers into a chasm and breaks.

Also, being one of the first people to colonise another planet? That would be FREAKING AWESOME.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

There are probably as many ethical issues as there are technical ones:

It's like mountain climbing. If you can't pull the guy up, you cut the rope.

Treat going to Mars as the ultimate extreme sport, risk of premature death is very high.

Diverting money from healthcare means people die. So can't justify a special mission to bring someone back when you can save many more lives back here.


Perhaps they should send terminally ill people on such missions, the lower gravity means less stress and possibly longer life in some cases.