• Create Account

# Mars-One

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

88 replies to this topic

### #41rpiller  Members   -  Reputation: 838

Posted 03 January 2014 - 06:58 AM

if we can prove we have the capability to create a successful colony on mars, doesn't that prove we should be successful at doing it anywhere?

We don't need to be on Mars to show that we can live there. We can show that from Earth because we know a good deal about Mars, however every planet (local or not) is a little different so proving that we can live on Mars doesn't prove that we can then live anywhere because they'll all require different problems to be solved. Being able to get out of our solar system is more important I think than colonizing Mars for the sake of learning about Mars because I think we know already that we could do it. Propulsion systems mean more to me than living on Mars I guess.

### #42L. Spiro  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 24515

Posted 03 January 2014 - 07:00 AM

You realize Mars One is a scam right? They have no way of getting supplies let alone people to Mars.

You do realize that one of their first steps is to send supplies to Mars, right?
It’s not exactly as though we need to wait the whole 10 years to find out it is a scam; they are planning to send things off within 2 years and have a contract with Lockheed Martin. Or did they just pay Lockheed Martin to not tell everyone they don’t have such a contract?

About births, firstly the point is not to colonize Mars except with highly trained personnel. Babies are not.
And birthing would, as mentioned by Hodgman, put an important member out of commission for far too long.
And no, no studies have been done on low-gravity births and reproduction is explicitly not recommended for that reason.

I am waiting for them to announce selected applicants will need to bring funding of $250k each or something like that. Then everyone would simply drop out. Actually it’s the inverse. The trainees get a salary (and a pretty good one). As for the moon and Mars, neither has a magnetic field to shield from radiation, but Mars has an atmosphere, better gravity, known sources of water (the moon likely has water deep under its northern cap, but this is not confirmed), and quite frankly more things to discover. Just because the moon is closer does not mean it is easier to settle (or we would have easily done it by now). It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance. L. Spiro ### #43JDX_John Members - Reputation: 292 Posted 03 January 2014 - 07:23 AM Where do you get this information from Spiro? My lodger is an applicant and doesn't claim to have such detailed knowledge of what they will or won't do. Or maybe she's more realistic that what they claim they want to do is not what will definitely happen Didn't you already hand at least some money over to apply? Personally I don't think it's a scam, I just think it's unrealistic and they will not be able to raise anything like the capital needed, even if money were the only obstacle in the first place! www.simulatedmedicine.com - medical simulation software Looking to find experienced Ogre & shader developers/artists. PM me or contact through website with a contact email address if interested. ### #44 fir Members - Reputation: -464 Posted 03 January 2014 - 07:42 AM Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first? ### #45Edvinas Kilbauskas Members - Reputation: 1163 Posted 03 January 2014 - 09:25 AM Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first? The things is mars is more resourceful. You can extract water from it, it has atmosphere, it has better soil, and the temperatures are not so extreme compared to moon. “There are thousands and thousands of people out there leading lives of quiet, screaming desperation, where they work long, hard hours at jobs they hate to enable them to buy things they don't need to impress people they don't like.”― Nigel Marsh ### #46Luckless Crossbones+ - Reputation: 2889 Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:26 AM Female only colonies are the most cost effective way of establishing a viable genetic population off planet. A single male can only ever support his own gene pool, where as a female can support their own and provide host to other donor genes. That's assuming that the sole purpose of the trip is to produce new humans to live there, and also that human work is not needed in larger capacity than is possible with a constantly pregnant population and later with a vast number of children growing up. I find it much more likely that we want some skilled work done right away, requiring previously trained personnel, and also that the real purpose of colonizing another planet is to move earth-dwelling humans to that planet rather than simply increase our overall numbers in a new space. "Earth-exodus" colonies are a horribly foolish pipe dream baring some major breakthroughs in launch methods and transportation systems. The math just doesn't add up for moving vast numbers of humans from earth to another planet, they don't even add up moving vast numbers from Earth to our own moon. It costs too much and takes too much energy to even reach low earth orbit with current and foreseeable future tech. However, colonies on other planets where humans actually settle, not just visit, and produce their own science and culture are a very important part of humanity's future. Also, are you suggesting that women can't do skilled work? Population doesn't have to explode initially after touch down with every single colonist getting pregnant at once, but after the initial base is established then the growth of the first generation can begin with a fraction of the population becoming pregnant. They can continue doing their jobs for the majority of the time, shifting to lighter and lighter duties. A handful stay pregnant at any given time, and eventually you can bring the first generation to 3-10 times that of the initial colonist base. By having the entire initial crew as female you allow a greater selection of initial female sourced genes (sperm apparently stores better and is more viable than eggs), and each mother is required to give birth to fewer children over their lifespan there. What is one useful thing that being male is going to give you when trying to settle another planet? Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb, which we cannot yet replicate or remove and store. Male sperm? It can ship very well, and if needed a resupply mission of it can be sent by way of an unmanned probed... However, is a probe full of sperm samples really 'unmanned'? Old Username: Talroth If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong. ### #47slicer4ever GDNet+ - Reputation: 6280 Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:17 AM Female only colonies are the most cost effective way of establishing a viable genetic population off planet. A single male can only ever support his own gene pool, where as a female can support their own and provide host to other donor genes. That's assuming that the sole purpose of the trip is to produce new humans to live there, and also that human work is not needed in larger capacity than is possible with a constantly pregnant population and later with a vast number of children growing up. I find it much more likely that we want some skilled work done right away, requiring previously trained personnel, and also that the real purpose of colonizing another planet is to move earth-dwelling humans to that planet rather than simply increase our overall numbers in a new space. "Earth-exodus" colonies are a horribly foolish pipe dream baring some major breakthroughs in launch methods and transportation systems. The math just doesn't add up for moving vast numbers of humans from earth to another planet, they don't even add up moving vast numbers from Earth to our own moon. It costs too much and takes too much energy to even reach low earth orbit with current and foreseeable future tech. However, colonies on other planets where humans actually settle, not just visit, and produce their own science and culture are a very important part of humanity's future. Also, are you suggesting that women can't do skilled work? Population doesn't have to explode initially after touch down with every single colonist getting pregnant at once, but after the initial base is established then the growth of the first generation can begin with a fraction of the population becoming pregnant. They can continue doing their jobs for the majority of the time, shifting to lighter and lighter duties. A handful stay pregnant at any given time, and eventually you can bring the first generation to 3-10 times that of the initial colonist base. By having the entire initial crew as female you allow a greater selection of initial female sourced genes (sperm apparently stores better and is more viable than eggs), and each mother is required to give birth to fewer children over their lifespan there. What is one useful thing that being male is going to give you when trying to settle another planet? Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb, which we cannot yet replicate or remove and store. Male sperm? It can ship very well, and if needed a resupply mission of it can be sent by way of an unmanned probed... However, is a probe full of sperm samples really 'unmanned'? That's alot of children to raise, and care for, while living in an sealed environment. it wouldn't really be feasible imo for a single women to give birth except maybe once in a decade, too allow time to raise the child to a degree that he can take care of himself. your also forgetting that in many cases men do tend to have a physical advantage over women. also, what is your expected size of this initial colony? as it stands mars one is only sending 4 people on the first mission, and iirc they claim to want to send an additional 4 either every 2 or 4 years after. lastly, don't forget that a few hundred years ago, crossing the atlantic took well over a month to do, and now we can do it under a day. obviously space travel is a massive leap over that, but it's not unreasonable that technology/idea's might come about to improve the time it takes for journey's to and potentially one day, from mars. Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market. ### #48Servant of the Lord Crossbones+ - Reputation: 33286 Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:36 AM The trainees get a salary (and a pretty good one). Why do you need a 'pretty good' salary if you're going to colonize another planet and aren't coming back? Why not just provide for your needs directly, during the training phases? It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' or 'SotL' rather than copy+pasting it all the time. All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God. Of Stranger Flames - ### #49L. Spiro Crossbones+ - Reputation: 24515 Posted 03 January 2014 - 01:13 PM Where do you get this information from Spiro? My lodger is an applicant and doesn't claim to have such detailed knowledge of what they will or won't do. Or maybe she's more realistic that what they claim they want to do is not what will definitely happen I am perfectly realistic. If they send me to a base to train in a real training facility it gives them some credit, and if they actually start sending things to Mars shortly after that it fully credits them. Just because I don’t mention my doubts doesn’t mean I don’t have them. I am simply a positive person who focuses on the good without losing sight of the bad. Didn't you already hand at least some money over to apply? Nothing more than with what I was willing to part. It was only around$20.  Big deal.
I donated a $50 PlayStation 3 controller to my workplace because theirs were getting unresponsive. Then I donated 3 games at$50 each just so we could have something to play in case the main guy who brings games for lunch gaming is sick etc.
I am about to donate a PlayStation 3 because for whatever reason idiots keep using the meeting room during lunch with the only PlayStation 3 (IE the only meeting room used for lunch-time gaming) instead of the one right next to it which no one uses for gaming.  Use some fucking sense people.  Have your fucking meetings in the Xbox 360 room that no one wants to use for gaming.[/endfirstworldproblems]

I donated $300 to a Starsiege: Tribes server I don’t even play (and more to the ones I do play). Really,$20?  That’s pennies.

Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first?

I just said:

As for the moon and Mars, neither has a magnetic field to shield from radiation, but Mars has an atmosphere, better gravity, known sources of water (the moon likely has water deep under its northern cap, but this is not confirmed), and quite frankly more things to discover.
Just because the moon is closer does not mean it is easier to settle (or we would have easily done it by now).
It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance.

http://www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/why-mars-and-not-another-planet

Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb

Which is a totally useless advantage.

And again, I repeat that pregnancy puts a vital member of the crew out of commission for far too long.  And once again it doesn’t make sense to have children until the colony is well established and has an existing decent-sized population and is fully stable.  You don’t just send a bunch of women and start having babies.  You send a bunch of trained personnel of either gender who, over the course of perhaps 40 years, will create an establishment suitable for children.  By which time there will already be males there, so doing it “naturally” would make the most sense.

Why do you need a 'pretty good' salary if you're going to colonize another planet and aren't coming back? Why not just provide for your needs directly, during the training phases?

As proposed, it doubles as a reality TV show.

What if I get voted off before the launch?

Those who go to Mars may have no need for a salary in the end, but most people will eventually be voted off the project and will obviously need funds to resume their previous lives.

I will be clarifying with the Mars One team during the upcoming interview when the salary begins and exactly how much it is (though I am likely not to ask this part for fear of sounding as if I am only in it for the money).

L. Spiro

Edited by L. Spiro, 03 January 2014 - 04:59 PM.

### #50 fir   Members   -  Reputation: -464

Posted 03 January 2014 - 01:31 PM

Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first?

I just said:

As for the moon and Mars, neither has a magnetic field to shield from radiation, but Mars has an atmosphere, better gravity, known sources of water (the moon likely has water deep under its northern cap, but this is not confirmed), and quite frankly more things to discover.
Just because the moon is closer does not mean it is easier to settle (or we would have easily done it by now).
It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance.

well maybe, i dont know - but it seen to my the first doubt,

the second is that man who will fly there soon will die or at least

get insane - personaly the flying to mars it the last thing i would do

(I much prefered to be imprisoned or psychiatric hospitalized than that :U

### #51Erik Rufelt  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5893

Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:21 PM

"Earth-exodus" colonies are a horribly foolish pipe dream baring some major breakthroughs in launch methods and transportation systems. The math just doesn't add up for moving vast numbers of humans from earth to another planet, they don't even add up moving vast numbers from Earth to our own moon. It costs too much and takes too much energy to even reach low earth orbit with current and foreseeable future tech. However, colonies on other planets where humans actually settle, not just visit, and produce their own science and culture are a very important part of humanity's future.

If you are arguing for the best method when the goal is to maximize the chance of human survival into the far future I probably agree with you.. though I don't really have an opinion.

Also, are you suggesting that women can't do skilled work? Population doesn't have to explode initially after touch down with every single colonist getting pregnant at once, but after the initial base is established then the growth of the first generation can begin with a fraction of the population becoming pregnant. They can continue doing their jobs for the majority of the time, shifting to lighter and lighter duties. A handful stay pregnant at any given time, and eventually you can bring the first generation to 3-10 times that of the initial colonist base. By having the entire initial crew as female you allow a greater selection of initial female sourced genes (sperm apparently stores better and is more viable than eggs), and each mother is required to give birth to fewer children over their lifespan there.

I was arguing that your statements do not apply if the mission objectives do not include having children on Mars, and that I believe it more likely that a reasonably current mission will not include such an objective.

Given my guessed objective, I deem gender likely to be irrelevant.

I also believe that a pregnant population that is raising several small children and babies will have some difficulties, though there might be a positive psychological aspect.

What is one useful thing that being male is going to give you when trying to settle another planet? Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb, which we cannot yet replicate or remove and store. Male sperm? It can ship very well, and if needed a resupply mission of it can be sent by way of an unmanned probed...

Again, if the mission objectives include having children, I don't really have an opinion but probably agree.

### #52samoth  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8548

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:05 AM

It's a scam.

No, it's not.

Go on a fantastic trip where no man has gone before, and not only for free, you also get a pretty good salary.

You have to admit that it fulfills almost all of the scam-o-matic detection rules, though:

1. Sounds too good to be true (free trip + getting paid) → almost certainly a scam.
2. Logical fallacies (who needs a salary on a one-way trip to Mars, which bank on Mars will it be deposited on?) → highly likely to be either a scam or badly planned
3. Unrealistic expectations (NASA can't do it, but we can) → highly likely to be either a scam or badly planned
4. Great, representative website, many references to alleged authorities → See Ferengi Rule of Acquisition no. 47
5. Result unverifiable (no return trip, no way for participants to complain other than via company-controlled channels) → highly likely to end badly, even if it does not start out as scam. Once you're no longer interesting, you'll be forgotten and left to starve (if you haven't died from radiation until then, that is).

Now the only thing that is missing to make it 100% certain to be a scam is: Decide quickly, I have another buyer interested in this car. But because it's you, I'll hold it back until tomorrow.

I am waiting for them to announce selected applicants will need to bring funding of $250k each or something like that. Then everyone would simply drop out. Not if you are truly logical. Applicants who are serious about their application pretty much must give them all their earnings. Seeing how you know that you will never return and will not have any use for that money (Walmart Mars is scheduled to open... when exactly?), it is only logical that you give it away. And who else would you give it to, if not the guys who help you realize your dream. ### #53slicer4ever GDNet+ - Reputation: 6280 Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:46 AM It's a scam. No, it's not. Go on a fantastic trip where no man has gone before, and not only for free, you also get a pretty good salary. You have to admit that it fulfills almost all of the scam-o-matic detection rules, though: • Sounds too good to be true (free trip + getting paid) → almost certainly a scam. • Logical fallacies (who needs a salary on a one-way trip to Mars, which bank on Mars will it be deposited on?) → highly likely to be either a scam or badly planned • Unrealistic expectations (NASA can't do it, but we can) → highly likely to be either a scam or badly planned • Great, representative website, many references to alleged authorities → See Ferengi Rule of Acquisition no. 47 • Result unverifiable (no return trip, no way for participants to complain other than via company-controlled channels) → highly likely to end badly, even if it does not start out as scam. Once you're no longer interesting, you'll be forgotten and left to starve (if you haven't died from radiation until then, that is). Now the only thing that is missing to make it 100% certain to be a scam is: Decide quickly, I have another buyer interested in this car. But because it's you, I'll hold it back until tomorrow. one of the biggest reasons NASA doesn't want to put a man on mars right now is because the return trip is the tricky part, they could do a one way trip relatively easily by comparison. I am waiting for them to announce selected applicants will need to bring funding of$250k each or something like that.

Then everyone would simply drop out.

Not if you are truly logical. Applicants who are serious about their application pretty much must give them all their earnings. Seeing how you know that you will never return and will not have any use for that money (Walmart Mars is scheduled to open... when exactly?), it is only logical that you give it away. And who else would you give it to, if not the guys who help you realize your dream.

No they don't, have you never heard of familys?!, why would an applicant just give their money back when they can hand it off to their parents, or siblings, spouse, children, relatives? their's no exact reason they will need it once they leave, but that doesn't mean they can't still have use for it to some degree.

Also, what about the applicant's that arn't going to mars immediately, and might be on the sidelines for decades? They would certainly have uses for that money.
Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

### #54samoth  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8548

Posted 04 January 2014 - 11:25 AM

one of the biggest reasons NASA doesn't want to put a man on mars right now is because the return trip is the tricky part, they could do a one way trip relatively easily by comparison.
You mean to say that NASA who could do this relatively easily does not find volunteers who are OK with a one-way trip? Seriously?

The USA are not interested in conquering new lands before someone else does? There be no patriots willing to go to new lands to put up their flag?

Kidding me?

No they don't, have you never heard of familys?!, why would an applicant just give their money back when they can hand it off to their parents, or siblings, spouse, children, relatives?
Why would someone who is at his senses leave his beloved family? Any person going on such a one-way trip must either have no family at all, or must have a seriously disturbed relationship with that family. In any case, that person wouldn't have much of a reason to give them his money.

On the other hand, giving your money to the organization that features your trip is very logical. You pay for a bus trip or a flight ticket, too.

### #55L. Spiro  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 24515

Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:02 PM

You mean to say that NASA who could do this relatively easily does not find volunteers who are OK with a one-way trip? Seriously?

Quite.
NASA has explicitly stated that they will never pursue a mission in which the astronauts never come back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-regas/oneway-trip-to-mars_b_4181771.html

I asked a representative at the NASA center in Houston, Texas, if they would ever send a person one way. He responded, "Absolutely not." NASA had not even entertained the notion and considered it abhorrent. "We Americans," he said, "would not approve." Then he looked to his left and then right to see that no one else was listening and he whispered, "but the Russians..."

They also stated it here.

The USA are not interested in conquering new lands before someone else does?

If NASA had been less eager to include unnecessary things in their proposal such as tripling the size of the international space station and a lunar base, they wouldn’t have sent a $450-$500 billion proposal that made the governments balk (research SEI (Space Exploration Initiative) and the 90-Day Study by NASA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative

The 90-Day Study estimated SEI’s long-term cost at approximately 500 billion dollars spread over 20 to 30 years. According to Steve Dick, NASA Chief Historian, the National Academy of Sciences largely concurred with the NASA study, but White House and Congressional reaction to the NASA plan was hostile, primarily due to the cost estimate.

Enter Robert Zubrin and Mars Direct.  It was received very well and only required \$55 billion, which could easily fit within NASA’s existing budget.  It never saw the light of day because space programs that were left out, such as the international space station, were very critical of it; they wanted some money and being excluded from such a mission made them less important.  NASA made their budget plans specifically to avoid this, hence their uses of unrelated services.

Additionally, with presidents changing every 4 or 8 years, the longer any government-funded project takes the less likely it is to get off the ground.
Mars One is the best chance because it is not politically bound.

Why would someone who is at his senses leave his beloved family?

So everyone who goes has no parents, grandparents, etc.?
Are you aware that many Asian cultures require their children to send money to their parents from their monthly salaries?

Am I the only one doing the homework here?
If you are going to criticize everything, might you also take the time to actually fact-check your arguments?

L. Spiro

Edited by L. Spiro, 04 January 2014 - 12:09 PM.

### #56Waaayoff  Members   -  Reputation: 951

Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:21 PM

No they don't, have you never heard of familys?!, why would an applicant just give their money back when they can hand it off to their parents, or siblings, spouse, children, relatives?
Why would someone who is at his senses leave his beloved family? Any person going on such a one-way trip must either have no family at all, or must have a seriously disturbed relationship with that family.

I don't have feelings for any of my family members but they are great people. No disturbed relationships here. Now what?

Anyway, congratulations on getting to round 2 and good luck with getting to mars!

"Spending your life waiting for the messiah to come save the world is like waiting around for the straight piece to come in Tetris...even if it comes, by that time you've accumulated a mountain of shit so high that you're fucked no matter what you do. "

### #57Servant of the Lord  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 33286

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:20 PM

Why would someone who is at his senses leave his beloved family? Any person going on such a one-way trip must either have no family at all, or must have a seriously disturbed relationship with that family. In any case, that person wouldn't have much of a reason to give them his money.

I disagree here. My family is very close-knit, yet I've had several brothers join the army. That's a very high percentage of being one-way, and at the very least, is a 4 to 6 year commitment to be somewhere other than where your family is. They still keep in touch with mom and dad, calling regularly, visiting several times a year - staying for a few days or a week when they can get time off from their jobs. Our get-togethers aren't stiff, awkwardly silent affairs, but the usual jesting laughing and talking about important things going on in our lives.

There's a difference between co-dependency and familial intimacy - despite being close, despite knowing each other well, that wouldn't keep us from going away for years or for life, if we thought it was the right decision to make - and we wouldn't be too troubled by it either. Lonely - yes, sad - perhaps, but that wouldn't keep us from making the tough decisions that we might feel we need to make. Naturally, it's different with spouses, and they wouldn't leave them for any longer than could be helped, because they have a partnership and commitment to their spouse.

Ofcourse, being Christians, it might make a big difference that we believe we'll eventually see each other again of one if us does die.

Also, throughout history, many people have left their families and journeyed to new lands to either pioneer the land, or just moving to an already-settled place to make "a new life" for themselves, or to take advantage of an opportunity to prosper. Sometimes they'd stay in contact through snail-mail. And not modern-day 'within a week' snail mail, but mail that took two or three months before the letter would get there, and two or three months back.

A Mars trip would have, at the very least, plain-text email that arrives at earth in less than half-an-hour (Curiosity was 12 minutes one-way communication, but depending on where Earth and Mars is, it can be as long as 24 minutes or as short as 4 minutes). In all likelihood, you can add in photographs, voice recordings, and probably full video recordings, which will take an hour to get there, your family can read/listen/watch, and then write/record their response and send it back within the next 48 hours. That is a huge leap forward than any other form of communication at any other point in history for settlers except for the last 150 years.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' or 'SotL' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames -

### #58samoth  Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8548

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:25 PM

Thing is, there's a huge difference between not having family or not being too close or not having great feelings about one's family, or even going abroad on one side, and on the other side, taking a more or less definite no-return trip. Even if you go to another country on another continent, you generally have the possibility of returning. Not so when going to Mars. It pretty much means to never see them again.

While I could maybe still see how this might work with leaving "family" as in "parents" (though even then I would assume that there can't be much of a healthy relationship, most parents I know would go crazy), I can't seem to agree that one could do any such thing with any other constellation that one would consider "family" such as children or a spouse.

Leaving them on a no-return trip, unless you've already totally fucked up the relationship anyway just seems totally surreal. It's more or less like committing suicide (and it may quite possibly literally end up being exactly that, given the not-so-small dangers involved). You just don't do that to people you care about (it basically says they matter less to you than the trip).

Hence my assumption that the selected people would more or less necessarily be "no family" types. If their selection process is only somewhat reasonable, I can't see them selecting someone who is in a relationship or married, or someone who is visiting his mother once every other week. This just wouldn't work.

### #59rpiller  Members   -  Reputation: 838

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:46 PM

So what happens if after a couple of years or so we find out that Mars just isn't that interesting? We are human and after some time the amazed factor of living on Mars will fade.

### #60slicer4ever  GDNet+   -  Reputation: 6280

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:54 PM

While I could maybe still see how this might work with leaving "family" as in "parents" (though even then I would assume that there can't be much of a healthy relationship, most parents I know would go crazy), I can't seem to agree that one could do any such thing with any other constellation that one would consider "family" such as children or a spouse.
Leaving them on a no-return trip, unless you've already totally fucked up the relationship anyway just seems totally surreal. It's more or less like committing suicide (and it may quite possibly literally end up being exactly that, given the not-so-small dangers involved). You just don't do that to people you care about (it basically says they matter less to you than the trip).
Hence my assumption that the selected people would more or less necessarily be "no family" types. If their selection process is only somewhat reasonable, I can't see them selecting someone who is in a relationship or married, or someone who is visiting his mother once every other week. This just wouldn't work.

I do agree that those with spouses would probably be heavily burdened with going, but i disagree about your sentiment that those who would go have an unhealthy relationship with their family. this would be the opportunity of a life time, the first humans to step foot, and attempt to build a colony on another planet. sure your parents would probably be saddened, but i think even within a loving relationship, they could/would understand the significance/importance of leaving.
Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS