It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Buzz Aldrin: Mars pioneers should stay there

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:17 PM
I agree

Beam me up Scotty!!

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:18 PM
I am going to preface this by saying that I am 28 and have always have had a fascination with space and space travel.

It does seem to reason that those brave souls that would be ever so selected to take on an ever daunting task of being the first ones to go to Mars, our nears planetary neighbor, would have to stay there. But if you are going to be sending people to the Red Planet, you are not going to be sending just one or two people. I believe, with the idea of staying that it would have to be on the order of more that ten to twelve people. They would have to be on a vast back array of backgrounds from scientist and mission specialist, to communication and information transmission. More than likely based on the settlers theory , you would want to recruit both males and females, preferably couples, who can help propagate the species. There will be other maned mission if the first is successful, but as there probably be no return trip for awhile at least, they can have families, and this would help with the thought of giving up on your life here on Earth. This would be the start of a who new era of human vision and life in space literally. Could you imagine the first child, conceived, birthed and raised in space.

I for one would like to be the first in line if they ever would take a civilian into space to go to Mars. I feel that to be apart of a higher calling and to be apart of something so important, so remarkable, would only go to serve as a stepping stone to further incursions into space and would inspire millions of people to achieve better from themselves, to achieve more and to reach farther. Unfortunately, They probably wouldn't let me go because of my condition, unless i can make one of the rovers into a motorized wheelchair. Oh well, I can at least dream and hope that we will obtain that which man has once thought unobtainable.

[edit on 10/30/2008 by bigvig316]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 11:59 PM
It's taking almost a decade to build a measly space station just 200 miles
above our head. Building a colony on Mars piece-by-piece with once a
year one-way trips would take...maybe 50 years and a couple trillion
U.S. dollars?

I say all we MIGHT be able to afford right now is to send 4 astronauts
there to perform experiments that the Rovers couldn't do and to bring
them back home with their samples and HD Videos. That one expedition
would require financial input from several countries and take many years
of advance planning.

What we need is a technological breakthrough courtesy of some alien
race, or to simply wait a hundred years or so, until the time is right, IMO.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by LogicalExplanation
That's nice, but Buzz is also old and old people tend to get senile no matter how brilliant they were in their younger years.

"Keep people on mars!"

Yeah, he is suffering from early onset dementia alright.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by LogicalExplanation]

is there any need for that sort of sarcastic nasty answer?

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:54 AM
Oh man. I now put most of all Buzz's comments and revelations in a new light now. He's got one foot in the Alzheimers ward. Sad.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:17 AM
reply to post by carewemust

Read my comments on previous page... a probe with highly sophisticated robotic instruments only costs 350 million

It's not that expensive, wouldn't even come near Trillions

and LOL didn't we just blow 9 Trillion fighting a moronic war we got nothing out of?

I reference probe costs not for initial mission but simly as an example, it would be cheeper to launch simple payloads...

Your talking about a rocket and parachute system that could use the same tech indefinitely, it doesn't need years of research for soil analysis or remote features or robotics

A rocket that drops off stuff is the supply method, very cheep

The initial manned mission and getting a crew down with a greenhouse, seeds, equipment, food, drills etc...

Might cost a few hundred Billion before all was said and done

Still Half one years defense budget and that's just us money not international contribution

The will just isn't there at the moment, but cost wise it would be very little in perspective

payloads could be quite large on rockets we could dump tons of stuff on the planet and not really have it be a genuine budget issue in the it every couple of weeks....

[edit on 31-10-2008 by mopusvindictus]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:25 AM
reply to post by Badge01

Do you really see the journey as that awful...

No one has done it, but guys have been in jail in isolation that long and that's isolation plus misery plus fear...

These guys would of course have a crew

I say, build a big enough space station and let it be slower but give them some nice room for the trip...

I am sure I can handle the time in isolation


There would be a drop of lag, but

Why wouldn't they have internet and video phone for the whole journey and even once they got to mars?

How ALONE are you ever in the communication age?

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by mopusvindictus

Tell you what. You fly coach from the US to Australia. It takes about 14-15 hours.

Now imagine the same flight, only 270 -days-

People just go nuts.

Read up on the Russian experiment. The people were professionals and highly motivated. Ended up with one of the female getting a knife and hiding in her room in a month.

What if you or someone gets sick? Higher pressure and somewhat higher oxygen and the potential for a super infection/strain of bacteria developing becomes a real concern. A small hangnail getting infected in space is a whole new problem. What do you do with the body?

People just do not realize...

But you're welcome to your opinion. I've read extensively on this. Presume you have also?

[edit on 10/31/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:04 AM
reply to post by Badge01

A possible solution, perhaps:

A great many of the problems involved in sending humans interstellar distances could be solved by placing them in a hibernating state, much like the hibernation which squirrels and other small mammals undergo during winter.

If you placed humans into a state of hibernation, then you wouldn't have to worry about keeping them particularly happy with the parks, activities and other space-consuming factors mentioned in Generation Ships. Instead, you would simply put them into hibernation at the start of the journey and wake them up at the end - they wouldn't require much food (perhaps only a very slow IV drip) - in fact, all they would need is a steady, slow supply of refreshed air and a constant low temperature - all of which is far less resource and energy consuming than giving them parks, plants, schools, hospitals and so on.

What is hibernation?
Hibernation is when an animal goes into a state of suspended animation where their heart rate, metabolism and body temperatures drop significantly. While mammals are in hibernation, their body temperature is usually only 2-4 C above freezing (as opposed to perhaps 38 C), oxygen consumption is 2% of normal rates and heart rate decreases by a factor of one hundred.
This means that they can simply wait out long periods such as winter in underground burrows without having to move or forage for food. They can survive for this long without food because their bodies require very little energy to maintain themselves during this state of inactivity.
This means that they can simply wait out long periods such as winter in underground burrows without having to move or forage for food. They can survive for this long without food because their bodies require very little energy to maintain themselves during this state of inactivity.

Screenshot from "2001 - A Space Odyssey" by Stanley Kubrick.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:19 AM
I agree with Aldrin, but what about construction? gotta build.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:21 AM
There's a BIG difference between an animal who naturally goes into hibernation and trying to 'put' a human into some kind of hibernation.

Though we see it all the time in sci-fi dramas, from 'Space Seed' in ST:OS to Galaxy Quest, I seriously doubt we'll be able to invoke the kind of complex regime needed to do this for humans.

Imagine the problems.

Bears store their food internally in fat stores. Humans would have to be fed parenterally. (N-G tube, or maybe even IV).

This messes with their digestive systems.

Remember the law of 'unintended consequences'? Well trying to force a human who is running 10 major systems from excretion to absorption to elimination -artificially- could just be too complex to regulate.

That's why I think eventually, if we want to go into space we'll heve to bio engineer special types of humans, designed from the ground up for this purpose.

2 cents.

[edit on 10/31/2008 by Badge01]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by Badge01

Yes, huge on the Mars subject.

I agree entirely that in an enclosed cabin you'd be miserable at best.

When I entertain the notion, i'm think as a minimum

6-8 people

On a Craft no smaller than the new Jumbo sized Double decker aircraft

Like the Airbus A380

It can hold, 555 people luggage and storage comfortably, it's so big that even given the number of people on board you can do this:

and have room for lots of people to do this

Not to just go off on my favorite new Plane

But my vision for the trip would be a crew up to 12 even

On a Shuttle craft this size...

Lifting it into orbit would be tricky, but not impossible, probably the single hardest part of the project and where the most spending would have to go

It would I would imagine need to take off as a regular plane with several discard able rockets for engines to boost it into orbit at the end, perhaps it could be attached to a few giant boosters like the shuttle but I could see inherent dangers in that given the size...

But no reason it couldn't be done

The next thing needed would be to launch replacements for those same rockets and have them waiting in space, use the space station perhaps and they would need to be fitted in orbit

You wouldn't want the shuttle to have it's own engines supply the ride, too much fuel

this would require the most elaborate space walk in history but still not impossible, something we can do, and will need to be able to do and get done to launch any craft in orbit ever anyway, worthwhile to pursue

So we are talking about a significant expansion of the space station being needed and... probably a few small shuttles in operation again to go back and forth (something the usa is sorely lacking at the moment)

(these are after all just my thoughts on how to get a shuttle that size into orbit and fit it with the disposable rockets it needs for the journey to mars, i'm not an engineer)

But it seems to be something we could do, I see no reason this requires much in the way of new technology rather existing technology on a grander scale

The last phase would be... New Rovers launched ahead of time

The idea being to launch several rovers that would layout a runway on an appropriate part of the surface and act as lights for the landing and guidance...

complicated but again, we have basically done this before, all the rovers would actually be needed for would be to clear any rocks out of the way before the shuttle arrives and perhaps even lay a coating of plastic of some sort down

But surely tires that would not puncture on gravel and small rocks could be built if not...

My thought is to fly it in just like the space shuttle with redundandt layers of tile in case some fell off during the journey

probably sounds kind of complicated to have rovers go out and flatten a landing strip?

And it is, but not all that complicated I think... there are many very flat places on the surface without much in the way of large rocks, I'm sure even with existing satellites orbiting we could find a suitable location and get some rovers down there to push aside anything larger than a centimeter or two for a few months...

and, other solutions to the landing could be found

But the main body of the idea, is that the shuttle lands and acts as the initial base...

A shuttle this size could hold with that small a crew allot of space for the journey tons of equipment from greenhouses, to small dwellings, extra suits... and leave plenty of room for the crew to get their space on the journey

wouldn't off the top of my head want to get into everything needed on board, but it holds luggage for 555 plus cargo and can sleep people... so I think the size is about right for 10 to Mars and a ton of gear with room to breathe

Retract the landing gear when you land and, no dust storm is going to budge something that size, your radiation shielded, your living just isn't flimsy like a make shift colony base would be

Plenty of room inside cargo for tons of fold out solar panels, and an extraction device to make water and air from the ice...

Maybe less people for the journey...for reasons of air and water thinking about this... maybe 6

The engineers would have to run the numbers you could pre launch water water and air tanks ahead of the craft too, to be docked to along the way, we refuel combat jets in air, sure we could do it in space if by the numbers the journey proves an issue in this department

maybe tanks launched to the halfway point to be intercepted...tricky, but it can be done...

Don't get me wrong, we need infra structure work for this...

Probes once a month not once a year,

a major expansion to the space station

a small shuttle fleet operational again

and a regular rocket deployment system...

But... I honestly and seriously believe that the space race should get most of the money the military budget currently gets

so If this costs a trillion and takes a decade, we are still way ahead of what we spent in Iraq

I personally think and YES I know 90% of people would disagree that Nasas Budget should be in the range of 200 Billion annually

not 15-18-20 Billion

Mars is the next frontier and the economic benefits of space are indisputable

we would only be reducing the military budget by a third to do so and we have a Major Nuclear deterrent and oceans preventing any land invasion, we would STILL be the worlds largest military spender if we put 200 Billion yearly into Nasa not very risky if you ask me, to do this

A single asteroid towed into orbit

17 Trillion in Platinum in return...

a Colony on Mars a whole new world to expand on to

and My beliefs as to the insides of the Martian Planet and how we could potentially jump start the planets core or simply inhabit the depths if not say to me it would be worth doing.

The military benefits alone from the space budget would offset any cut in spending, the high ground is the high ground, not to be a Dick Cheney LOL, but if you can tow a small asteroid in to mine it, you can also drop a piece of it on your enemies

Buck for buck I am sure putting 200 Bn into space yearly to reach this place would pay off...

No one thought America would be worth the time either at one point

But, this is about the size craft I see using and... it should be able to land, again, not an engineer, but if we can make something this size fly and we have built shuttles previously, this can be done I am sure

and yeah, no delusions of keeping men, in a capsule or tiny craft for almost a year and one half... comfort, space, workout center, entertainment, internet, games, privacy, company on the ride...

and a home when you land not some make shift fold out thing that's dropped by a lander! The craft would have to become the colony foundation


and I didn't even think of this before...

a small nuclear reactor on board would be great, permanent power, we do it in our subs and they stay down a long, long time, with allot more people on board

ROFL... I could sit on this topic for days, forever really, rudimentary thoughts to explain that, I am in no way thinking some cramped craft

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:48 AM
And obviously I'm not looking at the airbus as the only component, There are many options, but I think something this size, landable at the end of the journey as the main base is needed.

Perhaps something larger to hold air, water, and drop equipment in pods when it arrives...

Maybe build something a mile or two long that holds all the equipment and stores the food and water for the journey would be needed.

Perhaps it would have to be built in orbit and then this flown up at the end when the storage and propulsion system was complete...

makes it very expensive, but again 200 bn a years allot of money.

I suppose, A constantly growing space station and extensive shuttle program would indeed have to be the very first step.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by mopusvindictus]


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:49 AM
i am in my early 30s , I would go for it
if only for 5 years for example. I would stay for longer time if there would be at least an existing decent village

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Badge01

NOBODY has lasted in an isolation chamber long enough to even prove it could be done. The Russia experiment lasted almost a year but then fell apart. I think we're talking 250-270 days.

You wouldn't be in total isolation. You'd have your crew and email style communication back to earth. Russian cosmonaut Valery Polyakov did just fine spending over a year continuously on the often-broken mir space station. He even left the capsule upon his return under his own power and he was in his 50's. Provided the crew is as carefully chosen and trained as current crews are, a two year mars mission is anything but impossible.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:36 AM
I'll go by myself. Pack the ship with some robots who can do simple construction. Pack it with food, movies, a couple art programs, and a few other items. Gimme me the ability to rotate the ship to simulate Earth gravity so I can stand when I get there. Put a garden in so I can grow my own food as I go. Give it a Voyager/ Pioneer probe style nuke power plant so power can be had when solar panels don't work.

I'll land either in the ship, or in a capsule well stocked- or even land in a capsule- and the ship do a 'controlled crash' onto the planet. Set up the droids, become a 'live' probe while the robots do the grunt labor- go back, plant seeds or actual plants (mmm- asparagus), And wave at the earth occasionally thru the rest of my life. When the first colonists FINALLY get there, the base will already be set up and ready to go, communications set up, food growing in a garden, and all discoveries will be waiting for them to sift back thru. All they'd have to do is give me a burial if old age set in, or leave me ALONE.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:04 PM
Sorry, Buzz, but sending people to Mars is not the same as sending people to the New World.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:13 AM
The ability to send power to other planets was already
invented according to Tesla.

I see this being accomplished by using the space ships in
earth orbit, like GRIDKEEPER thinks we have already.

We send the nauts in to earth orbit and then they transfer to the
space ships.

Space ships being the ether ships of Tesla.

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:13 AM
I'd defiantly sign up for that mission!

so long as there was continued growth and expansion of the settlement and settlers it would be quite the adventure!

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 12:37 AM
I have a great idea for saving money in the construction of a ship to Mars. It is called, recycling. We currently have a space station the is circling around and around, and they plan on making a Moon base, which would make the space station obsolete. So why not incorporate the station in to the new shuttle to Mars. They are pre-made and ready for inhabitation. They just need to be re organized and attached to engines. They would also need landing gears and retro fit of the computer systems and such, but it could work.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in