First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Mars-One, would you rather watch or volunteer if that was an option?
22848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 2/24/13
http://mars-one.com/en/

The first settlement on Mars. Would you rather watch or participate?

Personally, if it was the moon, I'd participate. Mars is just to far and remote for my taste, so I'd rather just observe.
Posted 2/24/13
Send the guinea pigs in there to see how well it works out. Participation would be heroic and a very privileged experience.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 2/24/13
If no one else would, I would.
But as is, there are hundreds of thousands far more qualified than me.

I sure can't wait for mankind to expand to other planets. Hopefully, there will be a solid plan in place to avoid all the fuckups we did on earth. Especially as far as religion and politics go.
I really think Mars should be under one entire government. It will be a marvelous chance to give the "one world government" concept a chance. And really easy as well.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/24/13 , edited 2/24/13
I am not going to participate in a collosal waste of money that would have been better invested in improving life here on earth. It is not that it wouldn't be interesting to go off into space and live out your grade-school fantasies of colonising new planets, just that I don't see how your grade-school fantasy should take priority to, say, feeding the famish, improving the education system in this impoverished country, etc. etc.
30425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 2/24/13
I'd volunteer for anything.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 2/25/13 , edited 2/25/13


Could be a way out of this scenario: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPC47qMJVg
So surely it isn't THAT much of a massive waste... no?
22848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

longfenglim wrote:

I am not going to participate in a collosal waste of money that would have been better invested in improving life here on earth. It is not that it wouldn't be interesting to go off into space and live out your grade-school fantasies of colonising new planets, just that I don't see how your grade-school fantasy should take priority to, say, feeding the famish, improving the education system in this impoverished country, etc. etc.


Colossal waste, eh?! Let's see:

David Mould/Michael Cabbage
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1898/2339
david.r.mould@nasa.gov, mcabbage@nasa.gov

Sept. 17, 2007

Release : 07-193


NASA Administrator Griffin Discusses Value of the Space Economy


WASHINGTON - NASA Administrator Michael Griffin kicked off a lecture series honoring the agency's 50th anniversary with an address Monday describing the critical role that space exploration plays in the global economy.

The "space economy" was estimated at about $180 billion in 2005, according to a report by the Space Foundation released in 2006. More than 60 percent of space-related economic activity came from commercial goods and services.

"NASA opens new frontiers and creates new opportunities, and because of that [NASA] is a critical driver of innovation," Griffin said. "We don't just create new jobs, we create entirely new markets and possibilities for economic growth that didn't previously exist. This is the emerging space economy, an economy that is transforming our lives here on Earth in ways that are not yet fully understood or appreciated. It is not an economy in space -- not yet. But space activities create products and markets that provide benefits right here on Earth, benefits that have arisen from our efforts to explore, understand, and utilize this new medium."

Since NASA's birth almost a half-century ago, military and political competition in space largely has faded away. The focus of space exploration today is in the economic arena. Rising living standards and technological advancement around the world mean greater competition from places that were never competitors before.

"If technological innovation drives competitiveness and growth, what drives innovation?" Griffin said. "There are many factors, but the exploration and exploitation of the space frontier is one of them. The money we spend -- half a cent of the federal budget dollar -- and the impact of what we do with it, doesn't happen 'out there.' It happens here, and the result has been the space economy. So if America is to remain a leader in the face of burgeoning global competition, we must continue to innovate, and we must continue to innovate in space."

NASA is uniquely positioned to drive the space economy with technological innovation. Griffin cited a number of examples where the space economy yields tangible benefits for people here on Earth.

"We see the transformative effects of the space economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities," Griffin said. "We see the space economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient's heart. We see it when GPS, the Global Positioning System developed by the Air Force for military applications, helps guide a traveler to his or her destination. We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea."

Griffin's lecture followed a luncheon Monday at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel in Washington. It was the first in a series that will honor NASA's 50th birthday. The space agency began operations on Oct. 1, 1958. U.S. Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia introduced Griffin.

Future lectures in the series will feature prominent speakers to discuss the benefits that space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research provide in addressing global issues such as the economy, education, health, science and the environment. Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Md., is co-sponsoring the two-year lecture series.

For the complete text of Griffin's speech, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/189537main_mg_space_economy_20070917.pdf



That's one hell of a payout when you consider the measly budged:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/659660main_NASA_FY13_Budget_Estimates-508-rev.pdf

Mars-one is a potentially huge money maker which, in return, means taxable income and lots of jobs. Not sure what your point is.

(Just for clarification, I merely used NASA as an example. I am not saying they are related.)
22848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

If no one else would, I would.
But as is, there are hundreds of thousands far more qualified than me.

I sure can't wait for mankind to expand to other planets. Hopefully, there will be a solid plan in place to avoid all the fuckups we did on earth. Especially as far as religion and politics go.
I really think Mars should be under one entire government. It will be a marvelous chance to give the "one world government" concept a chance. And really easy as well.


It was just a hypothetical question. Of course, there are loads of people that are more qualified than us. I was just wondering how one would deal with the isolation and fear. I am not sure how self sustainable the station would be at first and how much stress that would put on the first colonists. Just imagine a supply transport going AWOL, then what? I'd freak the f*ck out!
22848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/13

turborobo wrote:

Send the guinea pigs in there to see how well it works out. Participation would be heroic and a very privileged experience.


Heroic and privileged, indeed!!! Also, very scary with nowhere to run!!!
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/1/13 , edited 3/1/13

SeraphimAda
It was just a hypothetical question. Of course, there are loads of people that are more qualified than us. I was just wondering how one would deal with the isolation and fear. I am not sure how self sustainable the station would be at first and how much stress that would put on the first colonists. Just imagine a supply transport going AWOL, then what? I'd freak the f*ck out!


True, but if it meant I could live on Mars, without all the screw-ups we did on earth, I'd work my ass off to make it happen.
Banned
31571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 3/1/13
I will just teleport there.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 3/1/13

SeraphimAda wrote:

Colossal waste, eh?! Let's see:

David Mould/Michael Cabbage
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1898/2339
david.r.mould@nasa.gov, mcabbage@nasa.gov

Sept. 17, 2007

Release : 07-193


NASA Administrator Griffin Discusses Value of the Space Economy


WASHINGTON - NASA Administrator Michael Griffin kicked off a lecture series honoring the agency's 50th anniversary with an address Monday describing the critical role that space exploration plays in the global economy.

The "space economy" was estimated at about $180 billion in 2005, according to a report by the Space Foundation released in 2006. More than 60 percent of space-related economic activity came from commercial goods and services.

"NASA opens new frontiers and creates new opportunities, and because of that [NASA] is a critical driver of innovation," Griffin said. "We don't just create new jobs, we create entirely new markets and possibilities for economic growth that didn't previously exist. This is the emerging space economy, an economy that is transforming our lives here on Earth in ways that are not yet fully understood or appreciated. It is not an economy in space -- not yet. But space activities create products and markets that provide benefits right here on Earth, benefits that have arisen from our efforts to explore, understand, and utilize this new medium."

Since NASA's birth almost a half-century ago, military and political competition in space largely has faded away. The focus of space exploration today is in the economic arena. Rising living standards and technological advancement around the world mean greater competition from places that were never competitors before.

"If technological innovation drives competitiveness and growth, what drives innovation?" Griffin said. "There are many factors, but the exploration and exploitation of the space frontier is one of them. The money we spend -- half a cent of the federal budget dollar -- and the impact of what we do with it, doesn't happen 'out there.' It happens here, and the result has been the space economy. So if America is to remain a leader in the face of burgeoning global competition, we must continue to innovate, and we must continue to innovate in space."

NASA is uniquely positioned to drive the space economy with technological innovation. Griffin cited a number of examples where the space economy yields tangible benefits for people here on Earth.

"We see the transformative effects of the space economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities," Griffin said. "We see the space economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient's heart. We see it when GPS, the Global Positioning System developed by the Air Force for military applications, helps guide a traveler to his or her destination. We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea."

Griffin's lecture followed a luncheon Monday at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel in Washington. It was the first in a series that will honor NASA's 50th birthday. The space agency began operations on Oct. 1, 1958. U.S. Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia introduced Griffin.

Future lectures in the series will feature prominent speakers to discuss the benefits that space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research provide in addressing global issues such as the economy, education, health, science and the environment. Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Md., is co-sponsoring the two-year lecture series.

For the complete text of Griffin's speech, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/189537main_mg_space_economy_20070917.pdf



That's one hell of a payout when you consider the measly budged:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/659660main_NASA_FY13_Budget_Estimates-508-rev.pdf

Mars-one is a potentially huge money maker which, in return, means taxable income and lots of jobs. Not sure what your point is.

(Just for clarification, I merely used NASA as an example. I am not saying they are related.)


Reading this, one is left with a feeling of profound confusion, the sheer irrelevence is almost off putting, and to read it would be a colossally wasteful endeavour- I was tempted to ignore it altogether, were not for what the ancient Greeks called ὕβρις, a sin that has led many people- even entire races- to their fall. Is he genuinely confuse and think that I meant to say everything connected with NASA and space would be a waste? That is clearly impossible, as he, the OP, started a tread on the Colonisation of Mars specifically, whose value has not been demonstrated and, indeed, can be shown to be highly improbable, as we shall show latter.

First, he (with Mr Griffith) says that NASA is wholly responsible for the profit engendered by Space Industry, that is, that they are wholly responsible for the profit of every satellite launched into space- this is, however, untrue. It is the private companies and their use of satellites that make them profitable, and the profit engendered by satellite, while profitable, does not profit the government. It is also fair to say that, now that private companies have the capacity to launch satellite, NASA isn't really necessary on this ground either. So, there is no payout from the 18.7 Billion dollars the government spends on NASA (which is more than the Government pays for Social Security, on the National Science Foundation, The Department of Labour, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Treasury, etc.) But it is Mr Griffith's Job to advertise NASA, which is why he is able to make some claims, albeit modest ones, of 'spurring on technology' and 'contributing and offering competition in the Space Industry', claims ultimately false or else unprovable.

Let us turn to this whole Mars-1 colonisation project- for this project to even be remotely successfully, we would need to produce something on Mars that would be of value on Earth. Now, the value of this thing must be much greater than the cost to create the settlement (that is, make it habitable for humans), sustain human life (which would require lots and lots of food that could, I don't know, be used to feed the famishe din Africa or in South East Asia), and, at the very least, the cost of transporting that something back to earth. The government will, necessary, have to subsidize this whole venture (seeing as the private sector is not daft enough to go through so obviously unprofitable a venture), and there must be something in Mars that would have to require human settlement there to produce, and cannot be produced elsewhere, otherwise there is no point in this venture. As our machines have already probed enough of Mars to know that there is nothing of the sort. The novelty of having someone living on Mars is not enough to justify spending money on settling people over there.


Suppose, then, we were to invest that money, those minds, and everything that is needed for the project to send jack offs into Mars to pretend to be Buzz Lightyears or whatever grade school dreams they had involving Space and Mars, and invest it here on Earth, you know, to make Earth more habitable- to feed the famish, house the homeless, improve the condition of the Working Class, all the needs of the people who would be left on earth, who must work to feed the unproductive and parasitic colonists, draining the government of the funds that it should be spending elsewhere, such as in improving Education, in Social Security, for the benefit of Citizens, and, especially, citizens on earth who need this money more than some project to send folks up there.

Therefore, it is clear that this is a stupid idea, and anyone who takes this idea seriously shoud either be sent back to grade school, because they do not seem to have grown out of their Childish fancies, or else lined up against the wall and shot for their lack of human empathy, sympathy, compassion, or, failing that, decency. As one should never underestimate the stupidity of people, and especially one who claims that the pleasure of the novelty of living in a Space Colony as in a bad Sci-fi film is somehow worth all the money that could be used for the betterment of Earth, it is sadly necessary to explicitly say that that was a hyperbole, and not meant to be taken seriously.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 3/1/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


SeraphimAda
It was just a hypothetical question. Of course, there are loads of people that are more qualified than us. I was just wondering how one would deal with the isolation and fear. I am not sure how self sustainable the station would be at first and how much stress that would put on the first colonists. Just imagine a supply transport going AWOL, then what? I'd freak the f*ck out!


True, but if it meant I could live on Mars, without all the screw-ups we did on earth, I'd work my ass off to make it happen.


Not content just to fuck up earth, you propose that we go to mars, and invent novel ways of fucking up, rather then try and improve earth first. If a man is so willing to abandon Earth and everyone there to its 'fucked-upness', without any attempt at reforming or revolutionisng life here, so he can live his utopian dream in mars, imagine how that would turn out- an evil soul will be evil still, even placed on another planet. The greeks knew too well that goodness and morality must start first from the character of a man (to paraphrase aristotle, how can you teach ethics to one who is immoral?), and you who does nothing to effect change on earth while wishing you were away in mars have shown your character.
22463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Delaware
Offline
Posted 3/2/13
I'd watch, regardless of my position on the matter.
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/3/13

longfenglim
"Not content just to fuck up earth, you propose that we go to mars, and invent novel ways of fucking up, rather then try and improve earth first."

"...If a man is so willing to abandon Earth and everyone there to its 'fucked-upness', without any attempt at reforming or revolutionisng life here."

"...and you who does nothing to effect change on earth while wishing you were away in mars have shown your character."


What basis do you have for accusing me of this?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.