5 ms·

I find it amazing that, even though Mars One looked so sketchy since the beginning, still 200,000 people applied for their program. That means that still many p

I find it amazing that, even though Mars One looked so sketchy since the beginning, still 200,000 people applied for their program. That means that still many people dream about exploring space. If a solid project was launched, probably hundreds of millions of people would apply to travel and settle down on another planet. It makes me very hopeful. Until a few years ago, medias were always very negative and described space exploration as a waste of money. But, it is getting a bit better. This may be thanks to Space X, the new race to the Moon (China), the landings on a comet (Europe) and an asteroid (Japan), the Indian mission on Mars, and so on. Now, the project of replacing the ISS (end scheduled in 2020) with a permanent base on the Moon sounds more plausible (Moon Village).

manigandham 8y ago
There's a big difference though between wanting to go and actually being capable and qualified. The first several waves will need to be the absolute best of us to have a chance of establishing a permanent settlement.
- antt 8y ago
  One only needs to look at the death records for New England in the early period to realize that's not the case. An 90% mortality within a year is no stop for colonization if there is enough political will for it.
  - 7952 8y ago
    I think it was more about economic will. It was seen as an amazing commercial opportunity that attracted investors who funded the trip.
    - koheripbal 8y ago
      Agreed. It is definitely not profitable going to Mars. The only people who'd want to go, would be the most extreme ideologues. A toxic environment, surrounded by a toxic environment.
      - 7952 8y ago
        It seems bizarre that after spending thousands of years dreaming of the stars; the best place we can go is the bottom of another gravity well! And one that is massively less hospitable and pleasing than planet earth. Maybe we should focus on building in orbit, and extracting resources from asteroids and moons. It could be profitable. And probably more fun to be messing about in low gravity than living in a tent on a wasteland.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Definitely not comparable at all. We're talking about another world, one which is completely hostile to life. You need the best people to start the foundations.
    - antt 8y ago
      America was called the new world for a reason. And only slightly less hostile to 16th century Europeans as Mars would have been.
      - kgwgk 8y ago
        It must been have tough for Europeans in America in the beginning, without air to breath or water to drink or food to eat.
        antt 8y ago
        You are 2/3 for New England, the water was undrinkable and they couldn't get food: https://www.history.com/news/did-jamestowns-settlers-drink-themselves-to-death https://www.history.com/news/did-jamestowns-settlers-drink-t... > By the time Lord De La Warr showed up with supplies in June 1610, the settlers, reduced in number from several hundred to 60, were trying to flee.
        acqq 8y ago
        > the water was undrinkable and they couldn't get food It was just for a single group of people and only during a specific moment: “the settlers, who first arrived on the island in May 1607, feasted on deer, turtles and sturgeon during their first year in the New World” “confined to their fort, the colonists could no longer hunt, fish or seek fresh water” Siege conditions happened everywhere, not only in the New World.
        antt 8y ago
        That's mostly inaccurate and only true after they had been taught by the Indians how to hunt in the new world. The first year the pilgrims were in America was spent ransacking Indian villages destroyed by the plague for food. It wasn't until a friendly Indian called who renamed himself "the wrath of god" showed them hunting that they stopped starving. Again the death records for the early colony are fascinating reading.
  - shaki-dora 8y ago
    That just showed how bad the alternative of staying in Europe at the time was, and how a class system, abject poverty, and the constant risk of death from war, injury, disease, and miscarriage (of justice, and the genuine kind) reduced the value of human life. All cynicism aside, today’s developed democracies offer vastly improved lives. You may feel bored and adventurous, but I am unsure if those feelings can naively account for the motivation of the settlers. There is also something to be said for the difference the actual experience would bring. It’s one thing to be alone on a vast green continent, ready to be molded in the shape of your dreams by your bare hands (ignoring here, as always, the existing, native, population). Something tells me these settlers would have fared less well in a tiny aluminum sphere that requires you to solve differential equations to grow some salad.
    - andygates 8y ago
      I mean, they brought most of that with them. The only thing they evaded was religious persecution.
  - AtHeartEngineer 8y ago
    Ya I'd definitely go. I have military experience, flight experience, and I am educated, but definitely not in the top percentages that astronauts are in. Even if there was a 90% chance of death the first few years, I'd 100% go. I'd get on a rocket to Mars now, knowing there's not support structure at the destination, and I'm sure I'd cry and be freaked out, but I would definitely get on that rocket. I hope one day I can.
    - koheripbal 8y ago
      I wonder if someone wanting to go despite a 90% death rate should be disqualified on psychological grounds? Sort of like the old joke that "I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member".
      - fernandopj 8y ago
        There are missions well above 90% death rate which are very valid. Kamikaze attacks on wars. Chernobyl water release. And so on. You wouldn't apply the same psychological tests on those volunteers as you would on a ISS mission. You'd just thank them as they go.
Pristina 8y ago
200,000 applying isn't that big a deal since it's not that hard to apply. It doesn't really require any commitment.
- bsamuels 8y ago
  you had to pay like $50 to apply
  - garmaine 8y ago
    And it required a fair amount of time too, IIRC. You had to make a video introducing yourself, and answer a lot of questions.
PurpleRamen 8y ago
200.000 started the registration, but only 2800 remainend at the end of the process. Problably because they where not willing to pay the fee of $73 Dollar.
TotempaaltJ 8y ago
> the ISS (end scheduled in 2020) It actually looks to be closer to 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#End_of_mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#En...
- duchenne 8y ago
  Thank you for the correction. 2030 would give us more time to prepare an ambitious next step.

manigandham 8y ago

There's a big difference though between wanting to go and actually being capable and qualified. The first several waves will need to be the absolute best of us to have a chance of establishing a permanent settlement.

antt 8y ago
One only needs to look at the death records for New England in the early period to realize that's not the case. An 90% mortality within a year is no stop for colonization if there is enough political will for it.
- 7952 8y ago
  I think it was more about economic will. It was seen as an amazing commercial opportunity that attracted investors who funded the trip.
  - koheripbal 8y ago
    Agreed. It is definitely not profitable going to Mars. The only people who'd want to go, would be the most extreme ideologues. A toxic environment, surrounded by a toxic environment.
    - 7952 8y ago
      It seems bizarre that after spending thousands of years dreaming of the stars; the best place we can go is the bottom of another gravity well! And one that is massively less hospitable and pleasing than planet earth. Maybe we should focus on building in orbit, and extracting resources from asteroids and moons. It could be profitable. And probably more fun to be messing about in low gravity than living in a tent on a wasteland.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Definitely not comparable at all. We're talking about another world, one which is completely hostile to life. You need the best people to start the foundations.
  - antt 8y ago
    America was called the new world for a reason. And only slightly less hostile to 16th century Europeans as Mars would have been.
    - kgwgk 8y ago
      It must been have tough for Europeans in America in the beginning, without air to breath or water to drink or food to eat.
      - antt 8y ago
        You are 2/3 for New England, the water was undrinkable and they couldn't get food: https://www.history.com/news/did-jamestowns-settlers-drink-themselves-to-death https://www.history.com/news/did-jamestowns-settlers-drink-t... > By the time Lord De La Warr showed up with supplies in June 1610, the settlers, reduced in number from several hundred to 60, were trying to flee.
        acqq 8y ago
        > the water was undrinkable and they couldn't get food It was just for a single group of people and only during a specific moment: “the settlers, who first arrived on the island in May 1607, feasted on deer, turtles and sturgeon during their first year in the New World” “confined to their fort, the colonists could no longer hunt, fish or seek fresh water” Siege conditions happened everywhere, not only in the New World.
        antt 8y ago
        That's mostly inaccurate and only true after they had been taught by the Indians how to hunt in the new world. The first year the pilgrims were in America was spent ransacking Indian villages destroyed by the plague for food. It wasn't until a friendly Indian called who renamed himself "the wrath of god" showed them hunting that they stopped starving. Again the death records for the early colony are fascinating reading.
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  That just showed how bad the alternative of staying in Europe at the time was, and how a class system, abject poverty, and the constant risk of death from war, injury, disease, and miscarriage (of justice, and the genuine kind) reduced the value of human life. All cynicism aside, today’s developed democracies offer vastly improved lives. You may feel bored and adventurous, but I am unsure if those feelings can naively account for the motivation of the settlers. There is also something to be said for the difference the actual experience would bring. It’s one thing to be alone on a vast green continent, ready to be molded in the shape of your dreams by your bare hands (ignoring here, as always, the existing, native, population). Something tells me these settlers would have fared less well in a tiny aluminum sphere that requires you to solve differential equations to grow some salad.
  - andygates 8y ago
    I mean, they brought most of that with them. The only thing they evaded was religious persecution.
- AtHeartEngineer 8y ago
  Ya I'd definitely go. I have military experience, flight experience, and I am educated, but definitely not in the top percentages that astronauts are in. Even if there was a 90% chance of death the first few years, I'd 100% go. I'd get on a rocket to Mars now, knowing there's not support structure at the destination, and I'm sure I'd cry and be freaked out, but I would definitely get on that rocket. I hope one day I can.
  - koheripbal 8y ago
    I wonder if someone wanting to go despite a 90% death rate should be disqualified on psychological grounds? Sort of like the old joke that "I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member".
    - fernandopj 8y ago
      There are missions well above 90% death rate which are very valid. Kamikaze attacks on wars. Chernobyl water release. And so on. You wouldn't apply the same psychological tests on those volunteers as you would on a ISS mission. You'd just thank them as they go.

Pristina 8y ago

200,000 applying isn't that big a deal since it's not that hard to apply. It doesn't really require any commitment.

bsamuels 8y ago
you had to pay like $50 to apply
- garmaine 8y ago
  And it required a fair amount of time too, IIRC. You had to make a video introducing yourself, and answer a lot of questions.

PurpleRamen 8y ago

200.000 started the registration, but only 2800 remainend at the end of the process. Problably because they where not willing to pay the fee of $73 Dollar.

TotempaaltJ 8y ago

> the ISS (end scheduled in 2020) It actually looks to be closer to 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#End_of_mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#En...

duchenne 8y ago
Thank you for the correction. 2030 would give us more time to prepare an ambitious next step.