It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Expected Fatality Rate for That Mars Reality Show: 100 Percent

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
the biggest problem in establishing a permanent presence on Mars isn't lack of breathable air or food, or radiation, or the long trip times. all of those are solvable. the biggest problem is the gravity is so weak that anyone who adapts to it or anyone who is born there will never be able to adjust to earth gravity. anyone who tries to return will probably die of organ failure, aneurisms, fractures or stress induced strokes or heart attacks.

furthermore without the gravity or without terraformation people will largely be forced to live indoors in cramped smelly, dreary psychosis inducing pressure vessels. The only time people will go out is for short excursions in vehicles or in space suits. and that in itself isn't a quick or easy thing to do. firstly; you have to prebreathe and or do callestinics for half an hour prior to and immediately after any such excursion or you will get the bends and either die or wish you had died if you survive. this is because the suit pressure has to be significantly lower than one atmosphere or the astronauts cant bend the joints or waist. you could concievably avoid that with body gloves and mechanical pressure suits but the tech is pretty new and each suit has to be custom fitted. meaning tubbies can't wear one or if you gain or lose weight it might not work right.




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Of course the fatality rate will be 100%.
Unless one them is Jeebus, vampire Nic Cage, the Highlander or something.

We all must shed our mortal coil eventually.
edit on 10-10-2014 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLieWeLive




Maybe someone can clear this up for me but why not perfect this on the moon before we attempt this on Mars? At least there is a chance to return from the moon.


Good question. Relates to the bigger question "why did we stop going to the moon?" There would have been so many benefits related to research, protecting earth from stray asteroids, and learning how to colonize another planet without oxygen. It gives some credence to the rumor that NASA was warned off the moon. Russia has the capabilities, yet they also never showed interests in occupying the moon.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: TheLieWeLive




Maybe someone can clear this up for me but why not perfect this on the moon before we attempt this on Mars? At least there is a chance to return from the moon.


Good question. Relates to the bigger question "why did we stop going to the moon?" There would have been so many benefits related to research, protecting earth from stray asteroids, and learning how to colonize another planet without oxygen. It gives some credence to the rumor that NASA was warned off the moon. Russia has the capabilities, yet they also never showed interests in occupying the moon.


Mars is much stabler than Moon. The danger in moon is that the temperature varies greatly, from blazing hot (100°C) to freezing cold (-173°C). This is because Moon has no atmosphere. Also moon receives more cosmic radiation and solar wind than Mars. And the gravity is really weak in Moon, which could be problem.

Mars is far more Earth-like, even when its further. It has atmosphere, so the temperature doesn't vary that much. Its cold planet though, but not as cold as moon. Coldest temperatures in Mars are near the poles (-125°C), but in equator during the day, the temperature is +20°C, but can go to -73°C during the night. But same temperatures are measured in the Antarctica, and people survive there. Average temperature on Mars is about -60°C.

Mars gravity is 32% of Earth's gravity while Moon has 16,6% of Earth's gravity. Its a huge difference.

And The Mars One habitat will be built 5 meters beneath the soil, which makes the radiation levels same as in Earth's atmosphere. The trip there is far more dangerous though. In case of solar flare, crew must go to dedicated radiation shelter which is hollow water tank.
edit on 10-10-2014 by Thebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Well. Their names will go down in the history books, they'll become celebrities and they'll push the boundaries of science. Isn't that like modern godhood? I wouldn't go and I would never want to force anyone to go, but if they are excited and willing to go, who are we to prevent them from doing so?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It woluld be interesting to see their calculations on the nocturnal respiration of the plants they will be growing. At night plants use oxygen and give off CO2. Water plants do this on a much larger scale.

Of course they are doomed, we all are... everyone dies.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
Well. Their names will go down in the history books, they'll become celebrities and they'll push the boundaries of science. Isn't that like modern godhood??

It used to be. For a while there a lot of people wanted to be like Charles Lindbergh. These days, though, everybody's a star. Being the first person to walk, then die, on Mars would be historical but not worthy of worship.

Besides, what good is being a star unless you're around people who think that? These people would never see Earth again. There would have to be something seriously mentally wrong with somebody willing to die basically alone in a tiny capsule on Mars just so they could be famous. That's another thing that might make them somewhat less than heroes. The general recognition that they're psychotic.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

If they do a proper reality show with drama and personal confessionals everyday, big brother style (maybe they could vote people out of the habitat section to be forced to live in the utility wing), they'll become gods.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
the reason we don't go to mars or anywhere else is the gutless politicans who do not want to take the blame for people dying in space remember the shuttles that scared them to death they cant stand up for anything who will get blamed so there it is



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

You got it right in the title.
It is all a game, a game to make us feel good that we are doing something constructive toward goals that many have almost forgotten. Sorta makes up for not having a shuttle replacement, you know?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This is utter poppycock!

Just a quick look at semi-permeable membrane studies have shown that O2/CO2 diffusion/removal can be facilitated from storage facilities.

I laugh with derision!



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Blue Shift

If they do a proper reality show with drama and personal confessionals everyday, big brother style (maybe they could vote people out of the habitat section to be forced to live in the utility wing), they'll become gods.


It'll be depressing, like watching dead people on a one way trip to a desert island.
edit on 10-10-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

Jersey Shore isn't depressing? When I found out what a Shore Shower was, it sure depressed me.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't understand why we keep dragging our feet and putting off going to Mars with excuses such as this. What is it, is there something to hide on Mars?

People don't want to completely admit that there's no reason to go to Mars except for symbolic reasons. And while we were willing to pay a huge cost for symbolism during the Cold War to go to the Moon, Mars just doesn't have that same value. It's a dead planet, with not enough resources to truly be used as a "spare" planet in case Earth is going to be destroyed. Any research outpost we might establish there anytime soon would likely fail, and produce minimal scientific results for the cost. And our robots are quickly getting smart enough to take over the job of exploring space for us. They're always going to be much more durable and efficient at it.

It's sad to face our own limitations as a species. But the universe is huge and hostile, and while we can dream of flying around in space like Captain Kirk, the simple fact is we're not physically cut out for it. We didn't know that when we first started going into space, but we know it now.


Didn't they once believe the human body couldn't travel over 100mph ?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
there is a new material that easily solves this problem.

rt.com...


Yup problem solved right there. You beat me to it. For those who didn't click the link.

The title is: "Breathtaking: New crystal steals oxygen from air, paves way for long, long plunge"

With that they can store the oxegen till they get to mars maybe even recombine it with hydrogen to get water later.

There is no doubt they will die eventually it is a one way trip but it was the same for settlers in early times here on earth. I am sure there are hurdles to overcome but overabundance of oxygen isn't one of them.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I think ATS found the solution.

Oxygen absorbing crystals.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ETA: I was beaten. Dang you ATSers.
edit on 12-10-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
From what I read the issue seems to be one with having an abundance of O2, with the inability to selectively vent it and retain the N.

Would trapping the excess O2 via oxidation (Mars is an Fe rich planet and it happily oxidizes) help in any way?

Could we also send along an unmanned ship laden with candles? Open burning, low-temperature flames consume large amounts of O2. Several cases of those 7-day candles would put quite a dent in their excess O2 problem, without adding too much weight.

how much oxygen does a candle use

After the first harvest oil from the plants could be collected and burned and the dead plant matter composted. Composting also consumes O2 (also releasing heat as a side benefit seeing as how Mars is pretty chilly). They compost would obviously serve as a soil amendment and give a place for microbes to live (again converting more of that O2) and also a place for N fixation to take place, locking it in the ground and in the plant roots, rather than it freely and excessively floating around uninhibited.

IMO in the case of a manned settlement on Mars, our bet bet will to be "Go big, or go home." We cannot make a fully functional ecosystem in a pop-up camper and expect good results. For it to work it will take decades, dozens and dozens of unmanned missions dropping off cargo and a litany of robots handling the majority of the construction before Mars will even begin to be habitable for any significant length of time.

But I also think the bigger question is what purpose does it serve mankind to have a dozen people living like ants in an ant farm, on a planet that is essentially dead? There is no atmosphere to speak of, the surface has been sterilized by UV rays, there is violent temperature fluctuations and sandstorms, and a near 100% chance of death with help months away.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
There were these new crystals recently invented which can store huge amounts of oxygen, like a sponge soaking up water. As I just posted in another thread about the same thing, these crystals could be used to store/release excess oxygen.
See my thread here about the crystals.



posted on Feb, 16 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Of course they're doomed, there's no way home... it's a one-way trip.


Its not that we cant bring them back, its that we dont know what quarantine measures to put in place when they do come back.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: RifRAAF

originally posted by: Kali74
Of course they're doomed, there's no way home... it's a one-way trip.


Its not that we cant bring them back, its that we dont know what quarantine measures to put in place when they do come back.


No it really is that we can't get them back. What platform will be used to launch the rocket to bring them back home?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join