• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
L. Spiro

Mars-One

82 posts in this topic

So much so that you are willing to risk the pursuit of possible other dreams, that you don't even know you want yet, for this one?

That’s actually a reference to me being unable to talk to women long ago and now that I can just approach any of them, my type has changed so much I no longer know what type of woman I want.
When it comes to life, where I want to go, what I want to do, etc., I know perfectly well.


I honestly don't think this will happen.

The only way to make sure it doesn’t happen is not to try.


L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The only way to make sure it doesn’t happen is not to try.

 

Oh, like I said, I think it will happen at some point, just by people that have access to a LOT more resources and technical knowledge - like, say, the people that already have landed Curiosity on Mars, for example...and we'll have the extra bonus that they don't even think about ditching their austonauts on a barren planet(even if they volunteer to do it) just so they can significantly cut down the costs smile.png

Edited by mikeman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to life, where I want to go, what I want to do, etc., I know perfectly well.

 

 

I feel like thinking one knows everything about what they want now and in the future is sort of a foolish idea. Things can change in the blink of an eye and being open to that idea can lead to even more adventures. If you ever want to be with someone you love (wife/gf) you are severely limiting your options in that space by living on Mars. I'm sure you've thought of that though, and have an answer for it smile.png

Edited by rpiller
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would happily become a colonist on Mars, but I sure wouldn't want to go with this program.

 

However, if anyone is serious about colonizing another planet, then they shouldn't be sending males. Well, at least not all of them. The only parts of a male that are actually useful or important on another planet are a small number of cells, and the delta-v spent to carry [i]ONE[/i] adult human male and all the life support needed for his trip would send enough preserved cells for hundreds of unique genetic samples. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if anyone is serious about colonizing another planet, then they shouldn't be sending males. Well, at least not all of them. The only parts of a male that are actually useful or important on another planet are a small number of cells, and the delta-v spent to carry ONE adult human male and all the life support needed for his trip would send enough preserved cells for hundreds of unique genetic samples.


seriously...that's how you'd do it? just grow a human colony there? Edited by slicer4ever
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our lodger is also in the 1058 people. I'd thought getting to Phase 2 was simply a case of weeding out the obvious joke applications and crazies, but to have gotten rid of 98% of applicants suggests otherwise, unless there really are very few people willing to go.

 

I am very skeptical this will ever get off the ground metaphorically, let alone literally. I am waiting for them to announce selected applicants will need to bring funding of $250k each or something like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would happily become a colonist on Mars, but I sure wouldn't want to go with this program.

 

However, if anyone is serious about colonizing another planet, then they shouldn't be sending males. Well, at least not all of them. The only parts of a male that are actually useful or important on another planet are a small number of cells, and the delta-v spent to carry ONE adult human male and all the life support needed for his trip would send enough preserved cells for hundreds of unique genetic samples. 

Why do you think they're only sending males?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally I would happily become a colonist on Mars, but I sure wouldn't want to go with this program.

 

However, if anyone is serious about colonizing another planet, then they shouldn't be sending males. Well, at least not all of them. The only parts of a male that are actually useful or important on another planet are a small number of cells, and the delta-v spent to carry ONE adult human male and all the life support needed for his trip would send enough preserved cells for hundreds of unique genetic samples. 

Why do you think they're only sending males?

 

You missed my meaning when I said 'not all of them'. I mean not all of a single male. The only part of a male human that needs to travel from earth to another planet for a colony is sperm cells. Any more is useless and redundant material that would be far better spent as part of a female as we don't yet have technology for artificial wombs, and the last I heard long term storage and deployment of sperm is far more viable than going the other way with the process. 

 

The only colonists that make sense to send from Earth are females with as strong a family history of child birth as possible. If they aren't able or aren't willing to donate the use of their womb for nearly continuous pregnancies then it means you spend more fuel getting them there than needed as the colony would require others go along with them.

 

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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt that reproduction is very high on the immediate priorities list, or even allowable. Fist they've got to get enough agriculture and industry developed to prove that the initial colonists can even survive themselves.
A pregnancy is just going to incapacitate one if your very few workers, be a huge medical burden and risk, and has an unknown chance of success. Any studies ever been done on low-gravity gestation/births/upbringings?
One of their rockets will surely be carrying a lifetime supply of contraceptives!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize Mars One is a scam right? They have no way of getting supplies let alone people to Mars. A livable environment would also take billions to create. It would also need to be under the ground and shielded to be viable for a longer than a year. (2 years is essentially a 5% increase in chance of cancer).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Any studies ever been done on low-gravity gestation/births/upbringings?

 

No better study than actually doing it I guess :)

 

I would rather just use these planets as launching pads to other planets and then finally out of our solar system. Travel to Mars in about 30 days (by 2025), hang out for a month or so. Then jump to one of Jupiter's moons, etc. But we need breaks to spend time in larger places or we'll go crazy.

 

Just living on Mars for the sake of living on Mars seems a little pointless. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just living on Mars for the sake of living on Mars seems a little pointless.


why would it be pointless? 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?

I like the idea of mars, but as was said in previous threads, i think a colony on the moon, or on a space station(i'm talking on scales much larger than the ISS), would be better as a first step to proving our capabilitys of surviving and creating livable environments compared to mars.

however, at the same time, mars has some stuff going for it that we wouldn't get on the moon, or in space. such as a closer to earth gravity field, an actual atmosphere to shield us from some radiation, potentially easier access to water. Edited by slicer4ever
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


why would it be pointless? 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?

I like the idea of mars, but as was said in previous threads, i think a moon, or a space station(i'm talking on scales much larger than the ISS), would be better as a first step to proving our capabilitys of surviving and creating livable environments compared to mars.

however, at the same time, mars has some stuff going for it that we wouldn't get on the moon, or in space. such as a closer to earth gravity field, an actual atmosphere to shield us from some radiation, potentially easier access to water.

 

I've also heard of a proposed mission where humans could establish a colony on Venus, in an habitat hovering at around 50km of altitude in the thick atmosphere (which would also shield the colonists from a lot of the ionizing radiation, and is a very earth-like environment in general). Personally that seems more realistic to me than a Mars colony, but either way anything that gets us off this rock we call home is a huge step forward.

 

Ultimately if the human race doesn't die out I think we will have colonized most of our solar system within 300 years, but I don't think we should just start catapulting humans everywhere just now. I also believe we should first work on propulsion and life support systems, but one has to keep in mind that without public attention, space missions are difficult to fund. It's not that they are expensive (the worldwide military budget of 2013 alone would be enough to finance several dozen large-scale projects) but they are not perceived as having any tangible value and a lot of people probably think they are just a waste of money to satisfy scientific curiosity. So in my mind Mars One could go both ways: it could increase public interest in space exploration, and even if it fails, become a catalyst for the funding of other, more plausible missions, or it could severely hurt the near-term future of space exploration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see this become possible if Red Bull would buy the project.

 

Anyhoo, a practical question (I don't have time to read through the project). The teams (the final Mars team or the probe colonies on Earth) would have males and females too? How are they planning to solve the sexual urge (and medical need) that males can have regardless of the environment? Women+men, or a jerk-off room, or castration (real, or chemical, or just some suspending medicine)?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


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 [i]male[/i] 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'?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0