# You may be able to move to Mars



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2013)

Mars One will soon be accepting applications for people to take a one-way colonization trip to Mars.

Discuss.


----------



## Janx (Mar 20, 2013)

my wife won't let me go to space.  She's mean.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2013)

My wife and I are actually looking at it, and thinking.  If it is ever to happen, *someone* has to do it, right?  We are both intelligent people with advanced degrees, only small families, and no kids...

There's a major question that comes to my mind that the documentation doesn't seem to answer.  They ask you to devote 8 years to their training program, during which time you're employed by Mars One.  That's cool.  But... what if it falls through, and they don't fly?  Or if you develop diabetes or cancer in the intervening years, or something?  You've devoted, in essence, the time for an entire career to them, and have what to fall back on if it falls through?

I find I'm not all that scared of leaving the world behind.  I am, however, not sanguine with having to stay on Earth with no obvious means of support.  If they pay you a six figure salary, so you can sock it away for retirement or the like if something goes wrong, then there's no issue.  But that's not clear from their current offering.


----------



## Dioltach (Mar 20, 2013)

My cats would love it. A giant litterbox, and they'd be fast like lightning!


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Mar 20, 2013)

Can we sign somone _else_ up to go to Mars?    Just sayin'....


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2013)

It's certainly a dramatic way to commit suicide.


----------



## Rel (Mar 20, 2013)

Mars ain't no kind of place to raise your kids.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2013)

Mallus said:


> It's certainly a dramatic way to commit suicide.




By that measure, living is already a way to commit suicide.  So, why not do it in style, doing something that might change the world?



Rel said:


> Mars ain't no kind of place to raise your kids.




In this media-centric society we have, I daresay I pity the first kid born on another world.  Their embarrassing baby pictures and movies will be immortalized.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 20, 2013)

_*ahem*_

[video=youtube;DiPT-seJ9uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiPT-seJ9uc&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2013)

Rel said:


> Mars ain't no kind of place to raise your kids.



In fact it's cold as Hell. 



Umbran said:


> So, why not do it in style, doing something that might change the world?



Fair question. The simplest answer is "there is no might, only fail" here, as far I can tell. A project to set up a Mars colony in 10 years funded by a coalition of the world's richest governments willing to pay adjusted-for-inflation, height-of-the-Space-Race sums of money... maybe. Barely maybe. 

A project funded by this:

"To pay for the Mars mission, the Mars One foundation receives revenues from the license fee from the Interplanetary Media Group, sponsors, donations and the sales of merchandise. "

No. 

This is basically Livestrong for space exploration nerds. I'd love for a project like this to be, well, serious. But it sure doesn't look that way to me.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 20, 2013)

The biggest probledm I see is that with 6-40 minutes round-trip for communication you can't actually play in a VTT game! And I seriously doubt the RPG as a hobby is high on the list of the foundation's criteria for astronaut selection...


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Fair question. The simplest answer is "there is no might, only fail" here, as far I can tell. A project to set up a Mars colony in 10 years funded by a coalition of the world's richest governments willing to pay adjusted-for-inflation, height-of-the-Space-Race sums of money... maybe. Barely maybe.




Ah, you see, there's a common misconception.  Mars One has based it's plans on known technology and suppliers - Space X Dragon capsules (alreasdy in service) and Falcon Heavy boosters (which fly this year), and the like.  The cost is estimated at $6 Billion.  I've not seen a noted authority on such projects dispute the validity of that estimate.  While that's not a small sum, neither is it an astronomical one - there are *individual people* on Earth who have higher net worth than this.  It is about one-third of NASA's budget.  Apple computers is, by comparison, worth about $108 billion.  It doesn't actually require a nation to make it happen.



> A project funded by this:
> 
> "To pay for the Mars mission, the Mars One foundation receives revenues from the license fee from the Interplanetary Media Group, sponsors, donations and the sales of merchandise. "
> 
> No.




Maybe.  "Revenues from the license fee," does not clearly state what we're talking about here: Reality TV.  Not just in the USA (where American Idol can generate $12 million an hour in ad revenue), but global.  The astronaut selection process, the training process, and so on, all potentially generating hefty amounts of money.

There is still a question of whether they can raise the funds - but you'll know that long, long before you actually have to get onto a rocket, as the plan includes production and launching of habitats and supplies before humans hit the sky.  So, in that sense, the risk to a human are small.


----------



## Janx (Mar 20, 2013)

I see where Umbran is coming from.  Let's say 5 years into it, the project collapses or his wife develops a problem and they are dropped from the roster as a viable couple for the launch.

this means both Umbran and his wife are out of work at the same time.  They are also 5 years out of date with their careers.   Will listing "Mars One" as your most recent employer be more of a liability than saying "unemployed for 5 years" on his resume?

I know some folks like to hedge their bets.  One old college chum even goes so far as to not work in the same sector as his wife.  if she works government, he works private sector.  On purpose, not just coincidentally.  For the reason that if one has cut-backs, the other may not.  the employment equivalent of diversifying portfolios.

For me, I'd totally go in for a trip to space and back.  But a one-way trip to mars to a new colony?  Wow.  That's scarier than coming to the New World.  At least in America, if you have an axe, a knife, and a gun, you can make a go of it in the wild.  On Mars, you need much higher tech just to survive.  if it fails, you can't forage for food or supplies.

this could mean that the exciting trip to Mars ends in suffocation or starvation and there's very little you can do about it.  Unless the natives are friendly and can help you through the first winter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 20, 2013)

> I'd love for a project like this to be, well, serious. But it sure doesn't look that way to me.




Like Biosphere2, baby!


----------



## Rel (Mar 20, 2013)

Mallus said:


> In fact it's cold as Hell.




And there's no one there to raise them if you did.  (sorry but I can't just let this go unsung)

Regarding your employability if this thing goes south: I would imagine that once you get past the "very non-trivial chance I may die" as a reason not to reach for the stars, "my skill set might be a bit out of date and make it tough to get a new job" feels pretty small.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 21, 2013)

Playing ingress there would probably suck...  There would be no way to create a level 8 farm... but owning every portal on the planet would be a plus.

I wonder if they would accept a portal submission for "Rock looks like 3CPO's head", "Broken down Martian Rover" or "I am so lonely I'm going to pull off my helmet and die right here."

-Sent via a cybernetic device.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2013)

Janx said:


> For me, I'd totally go in for a trip to space and back.  But a one-way trip to mars to a new colony?  Wow.  That's scarier than coming to the New World.




Yeah, it is a scary concept, isn't it?  But, all my Grandparents lived through things that I can't imagine but must have been at least as scary.  WWII, with the Soviets taking their country and not letting go, and they flee to America with nothing, not knowing the language.  At least the folks doing this (I don't kid myself, really - there are already thousands waiting to apply, the chances I'd be chosen are slim) are going someplace hazardous, but it isn't like they don't have someone rooting for them and sending aid.  My Grandparents didn't have that...



> At least in America, if you have an axe, a knife, and a gun, you can make a go of it in the wild.  On Mars, you need much higher tech just to survive.




Yes, but they're gonna send them with atomic batteries, space suits, and all.  Give me an atomic battery, and what can't I accomplish, darn it!



Rel said:


> Regarding your employability if this thing goes south: I would imagine that once you get past the "very non-trivial chance I may die" as a reason not to reach for the stars, "my skill set might be a bit out of date and make it tough to get a new job" feels pretty small.




That's the odd thing - not to me.  I really don't seem to mind the chance of dying, for a point, a reason - even a failed attempt, I think, would mean something.  But living a desperate life, dying poor, alone on a planet of billions, forgotten?  That, sir, is scary stuff!


----------



## Rel (Mar 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> That's the odd thing - not to me.  I really don't seem to mind the chance of dying, for a point, a reason - even a failed attempt, I think, would mean something.  But living a desperate life, dying poor, alone on a planet of billions, forgotten?  That, sir, is scary stuff!




On what planet (pardon the pun) do you feel like any realistically foreseeable life-after-not-going-to-mars scenario includes you dying "poor, alone on a planet of billions, forgotten"?

You and your wife are both smart people with marketable skills.  She's a (IIRC) veterinarian and those skills probably won't go out of date very quickly.  You won't be alone.  You'll have each other at the very least.  As for forgotten, you are an ENWorld Mod, sir!  We live in INFAMY!


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2013)

Rel said:


> You and your wife are both smart people with marketable skills.  She's a (IIRC) veterinarian and those skills probably won't go out of date very quickly.




Well, take that example.  The training program is supposed to be 8 years long.  Assuming the program is basically a full-time job, that means she'd have to stop practicing, and now we are talking about getting back into the saddle of a career abandoned 8 years prior.  Would you want a surgeon who hadn't touched a scalpel in that long working on you?

Not saying it is impossible.  But it is scary.

Ultimately, I think the Reality TV portion of it would be the killer.  I'm a pretty private person.  I can go to Mars, but I don't want you all... staring at me while I do it.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 21, 2013)

So where is the section on one's rights on Mars and what security and punitive measures are going to be employed on this mission? 

Oh, found it, supposedly the colonists will be on their own. Suuure. And if the colonists government isn't profitable for the company, they just stop selling them air.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 21, 2013)

I think you're looking at the training and the possibility of the project not going through in the wrong way. Going into the training is just a career change. People do it all the time. It's not like you'll come out the other side, (if the project fails), with no skills -- I mean, you're getting *training* in something. If the project fails, you have the training to do the same work, just you'll end up doing it on Earth rather than on Mars. 

If this work you'd be training for is not something you'd be willing to do on Earth, then you'd probably hate doing it on Mars, and you probably shouldn't be considering this project at all, anyway.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Mar 21, 2013)

that's a big assumption that Skills for Mars are as marketable on earth as his original skills.  Physicist and Vet are the kinds of jobs one doesn't leave and come back to (I know we'll get 3 examples of people who did).

If Umbran drops out of the program and his chief sellable traits are:
doing talks about BioSphere2, I mean the Mars One project
changing oxygen tanks on a space habitat

that might not be a great deal.

Bear in mind, half of the kind of people thinking about going on a one way reality show trip to Mars, are not deeply invested in a career on Earth.  Whereas, Umbran and his Wife are.  

Changing careers when you like the one you have, are successful in it, and are deeply invested in it is foolish and needless.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 21, 2013)

Janx said:
			
		

> that's a big assumption that Skills for Mars are as marketable on earth as his original skills.



I didn't make that assumption because that's not the issue:







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I am, however, not sanguine with having to stay on Earth with no obvious means of support.



There is a big difference between, "these new skills won't get me equal pay to what I'm making now," and, "these new skills give me *nothing* to work with."

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2013)

frankthedm said:


> So where is the section on one's rights on Mars and what security and punitive measures are going to be employed on this mission?




Well, to start with there are going to be four people.  Just four.  For a group that small (basically, your new family), if you cannot figure out how to manage together without some outside imposition of rules, you've no business in a colonist-scenario, IMHO.  It is only over time (4 new colonists every couple of years) that the group grows to the point where governance is required.  And, yeah, it makes a whole lot of sense to allwo them to work it out as they see fit over time.



> And if the colonists government isn't profitable for the company, they just stop selling them air.




Cynic!  Remember that at this stage, "profitable for the company" seems to be "makes interesting television".  The whole point of this being a one-way trip is that the tech to get mass back off mars (really, the tech to refuel ships on Mars) does not yet exist.  It follows that no significant cargo is coming off the planet, either.  The only thing coming back is data.



Bullgrit said:


> I think you're looking at the training and the possibility of the project not going through in the wrong way. Going into the training is just a career change. People do it all the time. It's not like you'll come out the other side, (if the project fails), with no skills -- I mean, you're getting *training* in something.




Yes.  Training in being a pioneer - a skillset largely unnecessary on Earth at this point.  You're not training to do *a* thing, that you can do here instead of there.  You're training to do a bazillion things.

I was thinking about this.  There's a reason why the training program is 8 years long, and they don't care about your education level before going in, largely because you'll need a whole different set of skills to get by there.  For example - you're sending people to Mars forever, right?  Well, human teeth are not built to last forever.  Someone is *going* to get a cavity.  And, untreated, a tooth-root abscess can be miserable, lead to malnutrition and even death.  So, someone (two someones, at least, as if you only have one, that one cannot give themselves a filling) will need training in basic dentistry.  Just enough to get by, not enough to be a real dentist.  Same for medicine.  And for construction work and machining.

Basically, successful training for this mission will have to fit into Heinlein's adage, "Specialization is for insects."  And that is a poor fit for modern Earthly life.




Janx said:


> that's a big assumption that Skills for Mars are as marketable on earth as his original skills.  Physicist and Vet are the kinds of jobs one doesn't leave and come back to (I know we'll get 3 examples of people who did).




I am sure it is possible, but it would be difficult, and I wouldn't go so far as to say it would be a sure-thing.



> Bear in mind, half of the kind of people thinking about going on a one way reality show trip to Mars, are not deeply invested in a career on Earth.  Whereas, Umbran and his Wife are.
> 
> Changing careers when you like the one you have, are successful in it, and are deeply invested in it is foolish and needless.




Or, at least something to be done only with great consideration.


----------



## Rel (Mar 21, 2013)

If you're going to train in this incredibly diverse set of skills anyway then add "public speaking" to the roster.  They are going to want somebody who is comfortable publicizing the mission anyway.  If it falls through then I think you could have a lucrative career giving talks about what the training entailed, the mindset that allowed you to contemplate leaving the planet, and...well lots of interesting things.  I'd pay to hear you talk about it and so would a lot of other folks I bet.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Mar 21, 2013)

Rel said:


> If you're going to train in this incredibly diverse set of skills anyway then add "public speaking" to the roster.  They are going to want somebody who is comfortable publicizing the mission anyway.  If it falls through then I think you could have a lucrative career giving talks about what the training entailed, the mindset that allowed you to contemplate leaving the planet, and...well lots of interesting things.  I'd pay to hear you talk about it and so would a lot of other folks I bet.




And write a book about it 

It definately has that sense of "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" -- I mean "wonder" ;-)

Umbrum, it sounds like you've put considerable thought into this.  I wish you the best on making a decision (and your journey forward)!


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The cost is estimated at $6 Billion. ... While that's not a small sum, neither is it an astronomical one...



Isn't it, though?

I imagine internet access must suck from up there. You can't just Google 'What to do when confronted with a martian' when it comes up. Or 'what to do when my air supply is running low.' And forget streaming video. You are totally going to miss out on the next Gangam Style craze.


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 21, 2013)

Even if I thought the proposed mission could and should go forward (and I do not), my personal opinion is that you should be ineligible. I believe that the appropriate crew for a Mars mission is four lesbians, preferably two couples. I am dead serious. Babies are physically impossible, aggression is minimized, and jealousy is minimized while still allowing for companionship. Four straight women are also a possibility, though the prevalence of the "couples" idea makes it seem less feasible. But there is no way that any man, and especially any straight man, should be permitted on such a mission.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 21, 2013)

If you say that because you think lesbians (or women in general) are more stable than men, dude, you are SADLY mistaken.

If you say that because you think it might make for a better subscription channel, you may be onto something.


----------



## Joker (Mar 21, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you say that because you think lesbians (or women in general) are more stable than men, dude, you are SADLY mistaken.
> 
> If you say that because you think it might make for a better subscription channel, you may be onto something.




Four girls, one pod!


----------



## Umbran (Mar 22, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> I am dead serious.




Which is unfortunate.  If you were joking, I could give you a pass for just being in bad taste.  Without that, well, I think that's dipping into the realm of inappropriate stereotyping.



> Babies are physically impossible




One word: vasectomy.  Two more words if you want to really be sure: tubal ligation.



> aggression is minimized, and jealousy is minimized while still allowing for companionship.




Because, apparently, women cannot be aggressive or jealous?  Really?  That seems pretty darned sexist, and apparently you haven't seen how girls get into online bullying these days.  Women are not calm, gentle flowers of peace, and the stereotype is kinda offensive.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2013)

> ...and apparently you haven't seen how girls get into online bullying these days...




Orrrr actual assaults and murders, for that matter.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 22, 2013)

Oh boy, this thread sure took a turn from merely pessimistic to something I don't even know.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2013)

Yes, this thread has turned a bit weird and slightly uncomfortable.  Could we please drop the subject of gender differences?  Thanks.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 22, 2013)

I would go to Mars if they let me buy up vast tracks of Martian property that I could later sell to developers. And if they let me name things after myself.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2013)

What would people _do_ on Mars?  I just can't imagine wanting to live there.

I get that there would be a lot of work building and maintaining basic life supporting stuff.  But other than that, you're stuck - forever - in a tiny environment with not much to do.  You can't go outside, or you'll die.  I suppose you can plod about on lifeless landscape in a heavy spacesuit, but that's gonna get old real fast.  You can play boardgames, I suppose, and download stuff on a delay from Earth.  It sounds like a terrible dreary life.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 22, 2013)

I'm looking at the list of things you get trained for and it seems to me that you could easily apply those on Earth as well if it doesn't go through. Extensive medical training, geology, physiotherapy, psychology, electronics, life support, crop cultivation and communication equipment. The only iffy one seems to be exobiology as I can't imagine there being all that many job offerings for it.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What would people _do_ on Mars?




I imagine the first would be primarily concerned with work to allow more to come - actually physically setting up the colony buildings and systems.  You'd also want to be doing exploration and basic science, to learn more about Mars and what resources you can learn to exploit. 



> It sounds like a terrible dreary life.




Never, in the history of mankind, has the life of a real pioneer been comfortable and easy, Morrus.  It would be turning in a comfortable, first-world lifestyle for crowded conditions, little privacy, and not a whole lot of leisure.  However, you'd be building a new thing, the start of something the scale of which is difficult to contemplate. 

You know the term "mid-life crisis", where, having reached maturity, the person looks back, and wonders, "What, really, have I accomplished with my life?  Does what I've done *mean* anything?  Will anyone remember me?"  The pioneer has no such questions - he or she has carved a new life out of a place where none was available before.  At the end of 20 years, say, he or she would look over the colony, and know darned well what they accomplished.



jonesy said:


> I'm looking at the list of things you get trained for and it seems to me that you could easily apply those on Earth as well if it doesn't go through. Extensive medical training, geology, physiotherapy, psychology, electronics, life support, crop cultivation and communication equipment. The only iffy one seems to be exobiology as I can't imagine there being all that many job offerings for it.




The problem is that you'd have to be "jack of all trades, master of none."  For each of those, you're nowhere near the level of competence of a master of that field.  Modern society calls for high-performing specialists, while pioneer work calls for broad but low-level competence.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Never, in the history of mankind, has the life of a real pioneer been comfortable and easy, Morrus.  It would be turning in a comfortable, first-world lifestyle for crowded conditions, little privacy, and not a whole lot of leisure.  However, you'd be building a new thing, the start of something the scale of which is difficult to contemplate.




Obviously.  I wasn't even hinting that I thought pioneering was comfortable or easy.  At least not deliberately. Even so, this is more like settling in the Antarctic than it is like settling in America.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Even so, this is more like settling in the Antarctic than it is like settling in America.



Yes. If Antarctica didn't have water, a breathable atmosphere, and Patagonia was 54.6 million kilometers away at its closest orbit.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Obviously.  I wasn't even hinting that I thought pioneering was comfortable or easy.  At least not deliberately. Even so, this is more like settling in the Antarctic than it is like settling in America.




A bit.  But remember, the original settlers of the Americas didn't have power tools, or antibiotics.  The entire Roanoke colony disappeared.  45 out of the 102 Plymouth Colonists died in the first winter.  

So, in a sense, I figure it evens out.  The conditions on Mars are more harsh, but we have better tools.


----------



## Janx (Mar 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> The problem is that you'd have to be "jack of all trades, master of none."  For each of those, you're nowhere near the level of competence of a master of that field.  Modern society calls for high-performing specialists, while pioneer work calls for broad but low-level competence.




Yeah, I'm pretty sure your training in Space Dentistry won't qualify you to actually practice here on Earth.  So you'll have a ton of skills, but none of them that you can legally use on earth where liability would get you in trouble.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> A bit.  But remember, the original settlers of the Americas didn't have power tools, or antibiotics.  The entire Roanoke colony disappeared.  45 out of the 102 Plymouth Colonists died in the first winter.
> 
> So, in a sense, I figure it evens out.  The conditions on Mars are more harsh, but we have better tools.




You've made the America comparison earlier; I just can't agree with you. This is a hundred times harder even taking into account newer tech.  There's no *air* ferchrissake! For all the hardships that America may have had a few hundred tears ago, it did have plentiful flowing water, wood, food, vegetation, air. 

Like I said, it's like Antarctica - but nowhere near as pleasant, lacking the water and air to be found down there. And civilisations ain't exactly springing up down there, for good reason! We have camps and settlements, but people can leave via helicopter and have stuff flown to them easily - there's no leaving Mars.


----------



## Janx (Mar 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> You've made the America comparison earlier; I just can't agree with you. This is a hundred times harder even taking into account newer tech.  There's no *air* ferchrissake! For all the hardships that America may have had a few hundred tears ago, it did have plentiful flowing water, wood, food, vegetation, air.
> 
> Like I said, it's like Antarctica - but nowhere near as pleasant, lacking the water and air to be found down there. And civilisations ain't exactly springing up down there, for good reason! We have camps and settlements, but people can leave via helicopter and have stuff flown to them easily - there's no leaving Mars.




I agree with Morrus here.  It's why I mentioned that here on earth, I can be dropped off with an Axe and  a knife and be just fine.  I can forage for foood, make weapons or traps to kill food, or tools to farm.  I can build a shelter quite easily with an axe.

All with relatively cheap and primitive implements.  the probability of an equipment failure is minimal, and I may be able to do without them if they did break.

In space, there is no food or air but that which you bring with you.  You can't forage for it on Mars.  Lose your supply, and you are hosed.

If your processing gear for air/water/whatever breaks, if you don't have a spare part or supplies, you can't do without or fix it with local materials.  There's no plants or animals to make duct-tape out of.

This is hyperbole, but I'd say it's an order of magnitude more dangerous than colonizing any place on earth.

In antarctica, odds are good you aren't losing your parka.  You can melt and eat snow.  You can eat a penguin.  And you can sort of sail back home.

Granted, under sea living or antarctica is the most dangerous places on earth, there's still a few more escape clauses and options there, than you'll have on Mars.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 22, 2013)

Joking aside and speculation aside, the link in the OP feels like a Ponzi scheme to me. The technical hurdles remain too high and profits too low.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 22, 2013)

> This is hyperbole, but I'd say it's an order of magnitude more dangerous than colonizing any place on earth.



I'd say you're an order of magnitude too conservative.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Joking aside and speculation aside, the link in the OP feels like a Ponzi scheme to me. The technical hurdles remain too high and profits too low.




The technical hurdles aren't that high - with $6bn it can be done, and tha sort of money is obtainable. As Umbran pointed out, there are individuals who can afford that, not to mention corporations.

As for the profits - that's tied up in those media rights. It'd be the biggest reality show the world has ever seen. Narrowing down the applicants, training them, launching them, over a period of 8 years. It would be a global show, with viewership in the hundreds of millions, and make American Idol look like chump change. People texting in opinions and votes (about non-critical things). Hell, the launch itself would have billions of viewers. What do they charge for Superbowl ad spots? Multiply that by ten.

Handled right, that 6bn will be nothing compared to the long term profits. The greatest adventure the world has ever seen - live!

And *then* they'll make movies about it. And sell books. And posters, and toys.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 23, 2013)

There are numerous people here on Earth with truly no work skills who end up earning far more money than anyone on this site makes with multiple degrees and decades of experience. Jack of many trades, master of none in this venture could be far more lucrative than a master of any trade.

Bullgrit


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 23, 2013)

I still say it is a Ponzi scheme in the making.


----------



## Janx (Mar 23, 2013)

Morrus said:


> The technical hurdles aren't that high - with $6bn it can be done, and tha sort of money is obtainable. As Umbran pointed out, there are individuals who can afford that, not to mention corporations.
> 
> As for the profits - that's tied up in those media rights. It'd be the biggest reality show the world has ever seen. Narrowing down the applicants, training them, launching them, over a period of 8 years. It would be a global show, with viewership in the hundreds of millions, and make American Idol look like chump change. People texting in opinions and votes (about non-critical things). Hell, the launch itself would have billions of viewers. What do they charge for Superbowl ad spots? Multiply that by ten.




I suspect they could raise the money to launch it.  The problem is when the Mars crew gets old and interest wanes.  It'll be Fox TV syndrome, not enough young people being pretty, having sex and being successful, so Firefly gets canceled.  Instead, it'll be, "Umbran, you're too old.  it's time for you to exit the airlock.  The viewers have decided."


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 27, 2013)

I would have guessed you could do relatively cheap tests (very relatively) of this sort of life at the bottom of the Pacific. You wouldn't have the same viewership, though.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 28, 2013)

Jdvn1 said:


> I would have guessed you could do relatively cheap tests (very relatively) of this sort of life at the bottom of the Pacific. You wouldn't have the same viewership, though.




It would be tough to top this show.


----------



## Orius (Mar 28, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What would people _do_ on Mars?  I just can't imagine wanting to live there.
> 
> I get that there would be a lot of work building and maintaining basic life supporting stuff.  But other than that, you're stuck - forever - in a tiny environment with not much to do.  You can't go outside, or you'll die.  I suppose you can plod about on lifeless landscape in a heavy spacesuit, but that's gonna get old real fast.  You can play boardgames, I suppose, and download stuff on a delay from Earth.  It sounds like a terrible dreary life.




I suppose it would appeal to the sort of people who would find the harsh living conditions and environment thrilling, and who wouldn't be the type who are easily bored.  Certainly the sort of person who isn't me.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Mar 28, 2013)

Umbran said:


> But living a desperate life, dying poor, alone on a planet of billions, forgotten?  That, sir, is scary stuff!




I know there is way more in this thread to talk about but this struck me.  

As someone born into that situation with little hope of moving beyond it, 


wow.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2013)

Jdvn1 said:


> I would have guessed you could do relatively cheap tests (very relatively) of this sort of life at the bottom of the Pacific.




Oh, testing the kind of life can be done on the surface of Earth.  It fact, it *has* been done on the surface of Earth:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Analogue_Research_Station_Programme

To be honest, the surface of Mars has more in common with the land surface of earth than it does the floor of Earth's oceans.  Maintaining a water habitat generally requires more difficult engineering than maintaining a habitat in thin atmosphere.  And, if you do it on the surface, you have the added benefit that a mistake doesn't kill anyone...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 28, 2013)

...or at least, it probably won't kill _EVERYONE_...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 28, 2013)

Umbran said:


> To be honest, the surface of Mars has more in common with the land surface of earth than it does the floor of Earth's oceans.



Sure. But the problem isn't that the Martian surface is so inhospitable to human life. It's that it's _really, really far away_. And the cost of moving materials to Mars is enormous. And we don't have a whole lot of vehicles with which to do that (or, at this point, any). And cost of creating said vehicles is enormous. And we have no practical experience trying to maintain any sort of human habitation beyond Earth orbit (and even the ones we have are in no sense permanent).  

None of those obstacles are insurmountable. But they're not the kind of thing you can fund by selling broadcast rights, tee-shirts, and coffee mugs. 

Without the direct backing of powerful nation-states, flush with resources, and capable of massive borrowing/fiating currency into existence, a project of this scale is impossible. Frankly, even dealing on the nation-state level, in terms of mustering the public support for such a big project, we'd need another a Cold War, to, umm, redirect national priorities on the required scale. 

Which isn't to say the Mars Project doesn't have it's uses. Considered as a piece of advocacy of human spaceflight, it's kinda cool. And considered as a piece of _marketing_ for SpaceX's much more modest _business_ of low-Earth orbit cargo hauling, it's kinda brilliant.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 28, 2013)

Colonizing the moon would make more sense as a first step, though it would be less sexy so to speak.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 28, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Without the direct backing of powerful nation-states, flush with resources, and capable of massive borrowing/fiating currency into existence, a project of this scale is impossible.




Nonsense - there are _individuals w_ho can afford the 6bn the project is estimated to cost, let alone corporations.  This absolutely does not require a nation.

And the broadcast of the biggest show on earth is not "coffee mugs".  It's incredibly large amounts of money.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 28, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Nonsense - there are _individuals w_ho can afford the 6bn the project is estimated to cost, let alone corporations.  This absolutely does not require a nation.
> 
> And the broadcast of the biggest show on earth is not "coffee mugs".  It's incredibly large amounts of money.




True, but the $6b figure assumes that the backers have a certain amount of access to technologies and liquidity.  The _*ahem*_ average billionaire might not have that kind of access without incurring massive startup costs.  And willingness to spend that money is also a concern.*  Partnerships alleviate but do not eliminate these issues.

The same goes for corporations.  Sure, IBM or Apple or any number of companies could foot the bill here, but in doing so, they may well have to compromise their corporate secrecy to do so.  And that doesn't even address the issue of exposing the company to shareholder lawsuits for investing large portions of the company's money in such a risky venture.

Nations, OTOH, have all kinds of advantages in such a project- economies of scale, taxation to raise revenue, sovereign immunity and powers like eminent domain or even nationalization (in the extreme).







* where I live, Jerry Jones convinced the city of Arlington to foot a good portion of the bill for the new stadium for his Dallas Cowboys with public money.  I know for a *fact* that the new stadium could have been paid for by Jones out of the revenue stream from the luxury suites at Texas Stadium within 5 years.  But why should he pay for something himself when he could get others to do so for him?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Nonsense - there are _individuals w_ho can afford the 6bn the project is estimated to cost, let alone corporations.




Let us just list a few of the billionaire wandering around (numbers from Forbes)...

Elon Musk: $2.7 billion - I list him separately, as he's already in the space game with Space X.

Bill Gates:  $66 billion
Warren Buffet: $46 billion
Michael Bloomberg: $25 billion
Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com) $23.2 billion
Forrest Mars (candy magnate): $17 billion
(two other "Mars candy family'" on Forbes list) - $17 billion each
Steve Ballmer (Microsoft) $15.9 billion
Michael Dell (Dell computers): $14.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook): $9 billion
Eric Schmidt (Google): $7.5 Billion
Sir Richard Branson: $4.2 billion
Ross Perot: $3.5 billion
George Lucas: $3.3 billion
Stephen Spielberg: $3.2 billion
Oprah Winfrey: $2.7 billion
Issac Perlmutter: (Marvel) $2.3 billion

If folks like this were willing to get together to fund it, yes, it could happen.  It is less than 10% of Bill Gates' net worth!  And really, how hard would it be to sell to people *named* Mars?!?



> And the broadcast of the biggest show on earth is not "coffee mugs".  It's incredibly large amounts of money.




Imagine, if you will, that you got the last four folks on my list on board - Oprah, Marvel Entertainment, and the two most famous names in sci-fi movies ever?  Pipe dream, perhaps, but if not... media gold!


----------



## Mallus (Mar 28, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, but the $6b figure assumes that the backers have a certain amount of access to technologies and liquidity.  The _*ahem*_ average billionaire might not have that kind of access without incurring massive startup costs.  And willingness to spend that money is also a concern.*  Partnerships alleviate but do not eliminate these issues.
> 
> The same goes for corporations.  Sure, IBM or Apple or any number of companies could foot the bill here, but in doing so, they may well have to compromise their corporate secrecy to do so.  And that doesn't even address the issue of exposing the company to shareholder lawsuits for investing large portions of the company's money in such a risky venture.
> 
> Nations, OTOH, have all kinds of advantages in such a project- economies of scale, taxation to raise revenue, sovereign immunity and powers like eminent domain or even nationalization (in the extreme).



Right. 

I'm also operating under the assumption the $6b figure is absurdly low, given the scale of the endeavor. A crewed Mars mission, maybe even with a fancy little lander, for $6b -- that I can see. Though even for that markedly less ambitious project I'd be shocked --shocked-- if the cost overruns didn't end up dwarfing the original estimate. 

I'll say it again, 6 billion for this is ridiculous. 

The trip is the easy part (note: it's in no way actually easy). It's the keeping the people alive on Mars that's the sticky wicket. You either need the means to continually rain supplies on them, or you need to ship them over with everything the need to survive: tons and tons of materials, basic supplies, redundant complex equipment in staggering quantities (because there's neither fabrication infrastructure nor an easy escape capsule back to terra firma on the angry red planet). 

What's the cost of landing a kilogram on the surface of Mars? (a kilo on non-living matter we're not also trying to keep alive in perpetuity, I might add). 

As for non-governmental funding: simple question - where is the profit motive in this? A venture like this has no short-term upside (there are cheaper reality shows to produce...). Any economic gains are medium-to-long term at best. And as far as I know, most businesses aren't fond of gigantic long-term R&D projects with no clear revenue streams. There's a reason why so much 20th century technological innovation -- including, well, spaceflight-- came from publicly-funded government projects, fueled, unfortunately by the Cold War and the subsequent rampant US militarism (without the Ruskies to beat, I don't we'd have gone to the Moon in 1969).

I suppose a group of space-minded plutocrats could plunk down sizable chucks of their personal fortunes FOR SPACE! But if that's the case, I hope they choose to fund Dr. Ellie Arroway's Gyroscope Wormhole Machine instead !

I'm saddened to find myself being so harsh here. I want a Mars-base, too. And prototype starships! But thinking you can do engineering on this scale privately... it's too much to believe.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True, but the $6b figure assumes that the backers have a certain amount of access to technologies and liquidity.




No, the $6 billion figure is based on the folks at Mars One _already having letters of interest_ from suppliers like Space X, (for the Falcon Heavy lifter and the Dragon capsules - prices for these are known), and having at least one supplier for each major technological piece of the puzzle.  

See the following:
http://mars-one.com/en/mission/technology
http://mars-one.com/en/partners/suppliers

This is no longer like the Apollo missions, were we were building everything from scratch.  The sources for these things already exist.  We now have companies who are quite willing to sell you known tech that fits the requirements!


----------



## Umbran (Mar 28, 2013)

Mallus said:


> As for non-governmental funding: simple question - where is the profit motive in this?




Here's a couple pieces of reading for you:

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

http://givingpledge.org/

Quite simply, there seem to be quite a few very wealthy people out there willing to give away their money for greater causes.

What we seem to lack is one charismatic and intelligent individual to pull them together for this purpose.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 28, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Right.
> 
> I'm also operating under the assumption the $6b figure is absurdly low, given the scale of the endeavor. A crewed Mars mission, maybe even with a fancy little lander, for $6b -- that I can see. Though even for that markedly less ambitious project I'd be shocked --shocked-- if the cost overruns didn't end up dwarfing the original estimate.
> 
> I'll say it again, 6 billion for this is ridiculous. .




No offence, Mallus, but what on earth qualifies you to price up this mission?  On what basis are you announcing that you know better than those who actually *did* price it up how much it will cost?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 28, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Sure. But the problem isn't that the Martian surface is so inhospitable to human life. It's that it's _really, really far away_. And the cost of moving materials to Mars is enormous. And we don't have a whole lot of vehicles with which to do that (or, at this point, any). And cost of creating said vehicles is enormous. And we have no practical experience trying to maintain any sort of human habitation beyond Earth orbit (and even the ones we have are in no sense permanent).



I probably phrased it poorly, but this is what I meant.



Umbran said:


> And really, how hard would it be to sell to people *named* Mars?!?



I love it! Cut this man a check!

I just want to say - because I never really actually posted my initial reaction - this is so awesome.

Though I think this Mars One program may not be going about this in the absolute best way (not to say that they're going about this in a poor way), I love that they are apparently going for it. I wish them the best, I hope that they give you serious consideration to be a part of the program, that it moves forward, and that you all see a lot of success out of the program. I will be rooting for you guys.

I may be critical of some of the details of the program (really just curious, though), but that is mostly because I want for it to be successful. I'm also having fun thinking about all the details (so... where does space poop go? How do you explain to future children, "I'm sorry, you can't play outside today, Timmy. Or ever, because the atmosphere will incinerate you." Also, these kids will learn "incinerate" before any of their earth-based peers).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 28, 2013)

Umbran said:


> This is no longer like the Apollo missions, were we were building everything from scratch.  The sources for these things already exist.  We now have companies who are quite willing to sell you known tech that fits the requirements!



I'd feel better about this once SpaceX successfully sends a few payloads to Mars using their Dragon Heavy Lifters --ie once they're adequately tested.



Morrus said:


> No offence, Mallus, but what on earth qualifies you to price up this mission?  On what basis are you announcing that you know better than those who actually *did* price it up how much it will cost?



None taken!

You know the answer to that already: I'm someone at work with some free time and Internet access .

No, I'm not an aerospace engineer or a NASA/ESA project manager. But you don't need to be in order to a little skeptical (or a lot) here. 

The cost of the Mars Exploration Rover mission was around $1b. Just for landing two robotic probes. Not humans and the supplies they'd need to survive on a brave new world. FYI... the Curiosity mission cost $2.5b

This project is much more ambitious -- can we at least agree on that? Probably more on the scale of the Apollo program, which cost upwards of $135b, adjusted for inflation (granted this counts the whole program, but they didn't go as far, plus, again, you'll need to land a lot more kilos on Mars to support people).  

It's a case of too many impossible things before breakfast. It would be not only the most ambitious crewed space mission attempted by humankind, but one funded in a new, unproven, and unarguably less secure fashion. I have to ask: why do you find it credible?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 28, 2013)

Morrus said:


> No offence, Mallus, but what on earth qualifies you to price up this mission?  On what basis are you announcing that you know better than those who actually *did* price it up how much it will cost?



I can't speak for Mallus, but in my industry, standard projects cost in excess of $20 billion... the idea that you can establish a Mars colony for less than a third of that price (or, three Mars colonies for the same price) seems incredulous. No specific knowledge, just an amazement of scale.


----------



## Janx (Mar 29, 2013)

Mallus said:


> continually rain supplies on them




consider that fragment alone.

How easy is it to drop a  package on the colony with enough precision that they can take a Mars Rover out to pick it up?

If a package misses the target by too much, they won't be able to reach it.  if a package fails to arrive safely, similar effect.

What happens if the colony misses a shipment?  How many missed shipments can they survive?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 29, 2013)

Janx said:


> consider that fragment alone.
> 
> How easy is it to drop a  package on the colony with enough precision that they can take a Mars Rover out to pick it up?
> 
> ...




Curiosity had a pretty small drop cone (a few kilometers).  They're getting pretty accurate.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 29, 2013)

Mallus said:


> No, I'm not an aerospace engineer or a NASA/ESA project manager. But you don't need to be in order to a little skeptical (or a lot) here.
> 
> The cost of the Mars Exploration Rover mission was around $1b. Just for landing two robotic probes. Not humans and the supplies they'd need to survive on a brave new world. FYI... the Curiosity mission cost $2.5b
> 
> ...




It is more ambitious, of course.  It doesn't remotely compare to Apollo, though - Apollo spent billions in research and development; this has the tech already.  It has been sourced and priced.  It could be done tomorrow.

Additionally, compared to NASA, costs can be remarkably low.  Look how Elon Musk's capsules were sent to the ISS for a fraction of the price it would cost NASA.  The private sector is (a) more efficient and (b) can take risks that would be completely uncceptable to a government agency.  The savings on both fronts are immense.

I'd reiterate - it's been costed.  I guess you can turn round and say "they're wrong; I know better", but you'll understand, I'm sure, when I consider their figures to be more reliable than yours.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2013)

The problem with supply drops is this:

If you drop big packages, its efficient in terms of payload and scatter within the drop zone, but risky in that it is all or nothing.  If something goes wrong, it will take a long time to assemble and deliver a replacement.  Bad news if you're talking about something vital.

If you drop a lot of little packets in a given time, it is less risky- if something goes wrong, they might lose some stuff but won't lose everything- but it is inefficient in terms of payload and scatter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2013)

> The private sector is (a) more efficient...




Minor quibble: the efficiency of the private sector is superior some- indeed many- things, but not all, though granted, this may be one of them.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2013)

Mallus said:


> I'd feel better about this once SpaceX successfully sends a few payloads to Mars using their Dragon Heavy Lifters --ie once they're adequately tested.




You realize that sending several payloads to Mars before you put people on board is part of the Mars One plan, right?  And that NASA is planning to use the Falcon Heavy for the same purpose before Mars One intends to launch any people, right?  And that it is still three years before Mars One intends to send any payloads to Mars, right?

Is there risk?  Of course!  If this weren't risky, it wouldn't be interesting!  There is no way in heck that the very first manned mission to Mars is going to be anything other than risky.  If you want risk-free, yes, this isn't for you.  You may take your personal efforts and interest into something nice and safe - like bread-baking.  That's nice and safe.  Until you need to get into a car and go out and buy more flour and yeast, 'cause the roads aint' exactly safe, you know...



> The cost of the Mars Exploration Rover mission was around $1b. Just for landing two robotic probes. Not humans and the supplies they'd need to survive on a brave new world. FYI... the Curiosity mission cost $2.5b




Yes, but then again, it looks like Space X is on track for being able to lift things into orbit about 10% of what it costs NASA to do the same - the Falcon Heavy is expected to bring the cost down to under $1000 per pound, from NASA's $10K per pound.

NASA is a great organization, and they have some of the most brilliant minds on the planet.  But they are hampered by governmental bureaucracy, governmental media-paranoia, and governmental risk-aversion, and that drives their costs up a great deal.



> I have to ask: why do you find it credible?




I find it credible because, as previously noted, *this is not 1969*, and is not the Apollo mission.  It is a new century, with decades of experience, understanding, and technological development under our belts.  In Apollo's time time, we were just stepping into space.  Now, we've had decades of developing needs to reach near Earth orbit and geostationary orbit that simply didn't exist back then - enough need to drive an industry.  So, basically, Mars One is able to piggyback on that other industry, and take advantage of economies of scale that Apollo did not. And that makes a huge difference in the price tag.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 29, 2013)

Here is another logistical question... how will they handle radiation shielding? The astronauts on the mission will be exposed to significant amounts of radiation, if not enough to die just from that expose then enough to substantially increase their chances of cancer. How will the technology protect them from that? This was not an issue for the Moon Missions because they astronauts were not going to be exposed to the radiation for long. 
Apollo did provide a lot of technology but a short-term mission to the Moon compares to a mission to Mars (with an intended colony) as a canoe compares to the Mayflower.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 29, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Here is another logistical question... how will they handle radiation shielding? The astronauts on the mission will be exposed to significant amounts of radiation, if not enough to die just from that expose then enough to substantially increase their chances of cancer. How will the technology protect them from that? This was not an issue for the Moon Missions because they astronauts were not going to be exposed to the radiation for long.
> Apollo did provide a lot of technology but a short-term mission to the Moon compares to a mission to Mars (with an intended colony) as a canoe compares to the Mayflower.




It's easy to shield against radiation (common soil, or water, a foot thick, both do a fine job of it). It's just extremely heavy, so has a high fuel cost for the mission.

That's not a high tech issue. It's a fuel cost issue.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 29, 2013)

I meant in transit, not on Mars.


----------



## jonesy (Mar 29, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> I meant in transit, not on Mars.



That doesn't change the answer.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 29, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> I meant in transit, not on Mars.




So did I. Radiation shielding is a simple but expensive issue. It's factored in to the $6bn.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> I meant in transit, not on Mars.




I am not privy to Mars One's solution.  One usual expected answer is to build your water tanks around the living areas of the craft.


----------



## Janx (Mar 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I am not privy to Mars One's solution.  One usual expected answer is to build your water tanks around the living areas of the craft.




Yeah, I thought it was common knowledge that they were planning on packing the food and water and poop on the outside of the living area to act as shielding.  When the Mars One story first hit, there were additional articles and sections that discussed the poop angle, because normal people would think that an odd material to use.

I guess we don't all read the science section of Google News.


----------



## Bullgrit (Mar 30, 2013)

> One usual expected answer is to build your water tanks around the living areas of the craft.



That wouldn't irradiate the drinking water? That wouldn't be bad?

Bullgrit


----------



## jonesy (Mar 30, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> That wouldn't irradiate the drinking water? That wouldn't be bad?



"Guys! Steve is drinking the radiation shield again!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 30, 2013)

"Shut up!  You're not the boss of me!"


----------



## Umbran (Mar 30, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> That wouldn't irradiate the drinking water? That wouldn't be bad?




No, not particularly.  

Radiation hurts you primarily through ionization - a high-energy particle comes tearing through, and rips bits off the molecules in your body.  If it does so to DNA, the cell may malfunction.  If it does it to other molecules in the cell, they may then go on to damage DNA.  It is the genetic damage that give you radiation sickness or cancer.

You ionize water and, for a moment, you've got a hydrogen wandering away from an oxygen.  But, soon enough they get back together, and there's no big deal.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 30, 2013)

jonesy said:


> "Guys! Steve is drinking the radiation shield again!"




That's okay - when he goes to the bathroom, we'll just recycle it back into the shield.  No problem

(Hint:  if you don't like the idea of recycling waste water for drinking, don't go on long-term space missions.)


----------



## jonesy (Mar 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You ionize water and, for a moment, you've got a hydrogen wandering away from an oxygen.  But, soon enough they get back together, and there's no big deal.



Sounds like the next Disney love story.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 31, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2013)

El Mahdi said:


> Isn't this also why high-pressure hydrogen has been looked at as a possible material for spacecraft shielding?  Minimal to zero secondary radiation?




I wouldn't think so.  Though, I wouldn't think high-pressure hydrogen would be a good way to go.  Hydrogen is good as shielding, but the problem with high-pressure hydrogen gas is that it really, really wants to become low-pressure hydrogen gas, and that's problematic.  You use water because it is a pretty good way to get high densities of hydrogen without having to use high pressure.



> I remember reading somewhere (though I can't seem to find it again), that research into hydrogenating carbon nanotubes with high-pressure hydrogen




Oh, that's something else.  That is *not* using high-pressure hydrogen as shielding.  That's using high-pressure to get hydrogen to chemically bond with carbon nanotubes.  You can then let off the pressure, and you don't get the hydrogen back unless you heat the nanotubes (to about 600 degrees Celsius).  I've heard about his not as a method of creating shielding, but as a method of storing the stuff - for making a fuel tank, for example.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 31, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2013)

If the universe follows the rule of cool, then yes.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2013)

El Mahdi said:


> Is it even possible?




It sounds kind of speculative, to the point of being far-fetched.  If we can't even make the metallic hydrogen, it doesn't seem reasonable to talk about binding it to anything, much less something like nanotubes, which are themselves still pretty new.  I certainly wouldn't then suggest this as a really viable form of radiation shielding in a practical discussion.

I mean, "metallic hydrogen nanotube composite shielding," sounds rather like, "unobtainium," or, "adamantium."


----------



## Jdvn1 (Apr 1, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Sounds like the next Disney love story.



Still a better love story than Twilight.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2013)

Jdvn1 said:


> Still a better love story than Twilight.




Yeah, but mold growing in your fridge is a better love story than Twilight, so that's not saying much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2013)

She was a haughty cyanobacterium, he, a lowly fungus.  But when they met, it was lichen at first sight!


----------



## Umbran (Apr 1, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> She was a haughty cyanobacterium, he, a lowly fungus.  But when they met, it was lichen at first sight!




So, the spinoff series is after they have offspring, and hire a housekeeper/nanny... it's called "_Who's the Moss?_"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 2, 2013)

Well played, sir!


----------



## Orius (Apr 2, 2013)

Jdvn1 said:


> Still a better love story than Twilight.




George Lucas writes better love stories than Twilight.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 2, 2013)

Orius said:


> George Lucas writes better love stories than Twilight.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkgYnNc-Fp8
(wait until it gets to the last part)


----------



## Umbran (Apr 2, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well played, sir!




I do such things spore-adically, so it is clear I don't have a hyphae-lutin' sense of humor.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 2, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I do such things spore-adically, so it is clear I don't have a hyphae-lutin' sense of humor.



I've heard a lot of puns in my time, but hyphae-lutin' really absorbs the cake.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 2, 2013)

The puns have mushroomed!


----------



## Rel (Apr 2, 2013)

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 2, 2013)

What, because some people don't like hanging out woth some fungi-s?


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 3, 2013)

I think it has more to do with how cramped everything is in here.  When we're all laughing and posting, it doesn't leave mushroom in here for anything else.


----------

