what kind of space mission would cause the same buzz as apollo?

[Nominal Animal]

I love Starship Troopers; it's one of my favourite movies.

For one, everyone in the movie is flawed; no perfect people in sight.  Even the heroes are just as shitty human beings as I am.  The political system is hilariously fucked up, and everything is done with the bright, sparkly eyes of the best propaganda.  What is there not to love?

Just consider the apex point of the movie: after wasting who knows how many soldiers, they triumphantly catch a "brain bug", to find out that yes, the bugs are afraid!

(Think about it. They could have just as well tried to find out whether the bugs have an even or an odd number of internal organs. Although, making it about "fear" slots in perfectly with the narrative about racism and war, that it is all about fear, spouted by those who do not understand racism or war or survival. The reason those things are claimed to be due to fear is that it allows one to assume a superior position: not suffering from that imagined fear.  Perfect posturing!)

To me, Starship Trooper is and always was the perfect middle finger to people who think in absolutes and believe in human heroism and the triumph of good over evil and similar tropes people are manipulated in current societies.

In reality, utopias do not exist, and if you try to build one, you end up in absurd hell of your own making.

Yet, as a movie, it is not really dark at all.  All the truly good things that happen in the movie, happen from small, normal human interaction.  Lots of examples how trying to change the world leads to absurd results, but working one day at a time, on stuff that are on your own scale, improving one small thing at a time, leads to moments of happiness, even if you are absolutely mired in a clusterfuck of a world.

[coppercone2]

btw I am pretty sure the book touched on DNA, there was a 'retarded' planet that was not evolving because of lack of UV light. I don't remember if they mentioned an advancement of a bioweapons program though. The forever war mentioned advanced logistics computers being in charge of driving the fleet around and stuff.

When I watch scifi though I tend to keep a components library of various concepts in my head to make it work and not irritate me during the 2 hours I am watching it lol

[Yansi]

I think there's a whole bunch of rich people who'd pay everything they own to be the first person on Mars. That's something only one person in history can ever do.

The first Mars flight will be some billionaire, IMHO.

Maybe one with a fatal illness, so he can justify it being a one-way trip.

(getting back from Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult than going there in the first place)

yea the one way trip thing is not viable at all for anything but robots, people should stop trying to design solutions for one way human travel. it makes as much sense as sending dying people out on canoes into a ocean. It's antediluvian and seen as uncivilized. It's literary putting a economic price on human life. Who the hell wants to die alone in space anyway, most people want to die with their family present. Economic price on human life = what desperate ass military men do when they are trying to win a war that threatens everyone.

It's seen as brave to go on a difficult mission, but no one besides primitives straps on suicide vests. There is a difference between a scenario like in the movie "Fail-safe' where the pilots go on a suicide mission to shoot down a bomber because of fuel and lack of time, vs someone strapping on a bomb vest. At least even with a terminal illness you have hope, no matter what, and you think you might be with your friends or family for a while longer.

Well I do not have many (if any) real friends or a family we could stand well together. Not saying I would want to die on Mars, but at least I could do something interesting about/with my life.

[coppercone2]

like what, die to corporate greed because no one decided to fund you a return trip? i dont think thats a good death at all. monopoly man wants some diamonds on his hat bro

there is absolutely no reason other then not enough rich people decided to let you live

maybe if you robbed the guy that built the one way rocket so you can buy a return trip, thats heroic

[CatalinaWOW]

like what, die to corporate greed because no one decided to fund you a return trip? i dont think thats a good death at all. monopoly man wants some diamonds on his hat bro

there is absolutely no reason other then not enough rich people decided to let you live

maybe if you robbed the guy that built the one way rocket so you can buy a return trip, thats heroic

I suspect that you don't want to climb Mt. Everest, do a solo around the world yachting trip, or traverse the Antarctic alone either.  You can't judge all of humanity by your personal point of view.  Nor should you try to force them to conform to your reality.

[coppercone2]

who the fuck does any of that on a one way trip? you are supposed to come home after doing all that.

especially everst did you ever look at the peak it looks like you climbed a junk pile

[Kilrah]

A lot of people value the experience more than coming home. For many home is boring. Live doesn't have the "religiously taught" value for everyone.

[Nominal Animal]

like what, die to corporate greed because no one decided to fund you a return trip? i dont think thats a good death at all.

Not everyone wants to live on this planet anymore.

Everyone dies at some point. What matters is what you do before that point. You want to live in a safe nest of your own making until then? That's fine. But wanting to go live somewhere else, find out something nobody else has had the opportunity to find out, even if it means you'll never be able to come back, that's fine too.

[CatalinaWOW]

who the fuck does any of that on a one way trip? you are supposed to come home after doing all that.

especially everst did you ever look at the peak it looks like you climbed a junk pile

Have you ever looked at the percentage that actually comes home?  I believe Everest has the best odds, and still several each year don't make it back.

Trips across the Antarctic are much more hazardous.

Look into how many of pioneers in hang gliding died in developing that sport. 


Now we are arguing about how realistic the chances of getting back are.  You obviously believe that the answer in the Mars case is a very good approximation to zero.  Others may differ.

[coppercone2]

yea but they have a plan at least. its not like he brings enough food just for a one way trip

danger is different then a suicide mission.

[Nominal Animal]

Now we are arguing about how realistic the chances of getting back are.

My point was that argument is not the right one: many people are willing to go there, and never come back.

It is not the same thing as going there to die. The interesting part is being there, alive, and doing stuff.

It should be obvious to everyone that at least for the first century or so, a Mars base would require constant support from Earth.  Of course, there is always a risk of losing those, say because of war; and that is the true risk.  Those willing to go on a one-way trip to Mars expect to live there and do stuff, perhaps not for as long as they could here on Earth, but they think the risk of early death is acceptable.

Another way of thinking about such endeavours is this: Say the Earth-Mars ticket is free, if you have the necessary skills, abilities, and health. The organizers do plan on sending regular supplies, but there is always a risk of interruptions, of course. However, the return ticket costs several hundred million per person, and must be paid in advance.

What is wrong with that?  Assuming the risks and probabilities are openly discussed, of course.  Why is it so odd for someone to choose the one-way ticket, knowing they will spend the rest of their lives there?

[coppercone2]

that makes sense if you are on the run lol. maybe the FBI is too cheap to arrest you on mars 

its not like they think its impossible because of a extradition treaty, more like the funds don't get approved.

and there is no reason other then being impatient and cheap fucks. its just gonna be dumb like the whole world watching a cat survive on a tree because it manages to catch some birds once in a while.

[Nominal Animal]

there is no reason other then being impatient and cheap fucks.

Really? Wow.

[coppercone2]

yea because you can't get funding for a bus ticket home

[coppercone2]

Investors: sorry we are strapped we can't buy you a return trip

*drive away sitting on solid gold bar the size of a shipping container being pulled by a giant team of ligers*

[Nominal Animal]

yea because you can't get funding for a bus ticket home

Do you know the main difference between absailing (or canyoning that Dave does), and mountain climbing?  It is relatively easy and safe in one direction, and damn dangerous in the other.

Sending supplies to Mars is relatively cheap, because all you need to do is overcome Earth's gravity. You don't need much delta-V, because it does not matter if the supplies take a couple of years or more to get there. You need minimal thruster propellant, for course corrections only. At Mars, you do aerobraking and parachutes.  The logistics are known, and we have the tech.

A crew return vehicle needs not only get there, but back as well. It needs nearly twice the delta-V, and that means a lot more than double the mass.  As mass increases, price increases exponentially.  Furthermore, if the return vehicle itself is crewed, they must spend double to triple the time in flight (in part, because the launch windows for the return trip does not occur immediately after arrival).  That increases the difficulty of such missions exponentially, because right now, we're shit poor at maintaining closed systems.

I've told you I and thousands of others would be willing to risk the 30-60 years of life they have left, for the opportunity to go to Mars and find out what is there, even if it meant that there is basically zero chance of a return vehicle.

It is not about "funding for the return ticket home".  It is about willing to take the risk to get there before we can create a bus that can take people home; and not willing to wait for a generation or three until we have the technical capability.  (Some believe that either the practical aspects of the technology, or the human werewithal needed for just Moon landings, was simply lost after the three years of Apollo missions in 1969-1972; and that it means that unless we go to Mars "early", like Apollo missions did, we never will.  That is a factor as well.)

I think you are ribbing me (if you are, don't; I don't understand English well enough to get that right -- my English skills are technical, not figurative/metaphorical), but it is downright stupid to assume that a return ticket is somehow a sensible requirement just because you yourself would not want to take the risks.  It is much more about it being worth the risks, and accepting no return as one of the costs, for early access.  Considering the tested IQ range and personality assessments of the applicants, I'd be very careful about calling them stupid or reckless, either.

Now, impatient is a more debatable term.  Personally, I don't think you can call someone impatient just because they want to do something instead of waiting to die first and their grandchildren or great-grandchildren to do it.  It's just not the same imagining that your distant descendants (especially if you know you have none) doing something interesting, because it would be "impatient" to try and do it yourself, even with considerable risk.  Staying "safe" at home is a 100% risk of death as well.

[coppercone2]

give me a break they figured out how to destroy civilization in about 25 minutes with a few phone calls and relays and your telling me you can't get shit off a planet with 0.7 earth mass with a modest engineering effort?

your acting like we are trying to figure out how to get out of a black hole. they send like 500 tons of commercial bullshit to the sky every year.

its preposterous 

its not like some big engineering 'we don't even know if its possible' problem, its a damn number crunch at this point. half the stuff they can probably just use a multiplicative scaling tool in cad to solve. some guy is gonna be paid 120 dollars an hour to make some brackets thicker by typing *0.5 in cad.

i bet you can use existing stuff if it was not shaved down to the last absolute fractional yen because of payload cost.

[Nominal Animal]

give me a break they figured out how to destroy civilization in about 25 minutes with a few phone calls and relays and your telling me you can't get shit off a planet with 0.7 earth mass with a modest engineering effort?

Yep.

There is this joke about an obstetrician who got completely fed up with their job, and went to a vocational school to become a car mechanic.  To graduate, they had to disassemble and reassemble an engine.  The assessor was truly impressed: not only was every single part cleaned and polished and all prepped up while doing so, but they did it all through the exhaust pipe.

We don't live on Mars.  Sending a vehicle to Mars is simple compared to sending a vehicle to Mars to bring people back.  Even utterly destroying the surface of the Earth, glassing most populated landmasses, is simpler.

i bet you can use existing stuff if it was not shaved down to the last absolute fractional yen because of payload cost.

Oh now I get what you mean.

True.  If we could get people to put the money they use for makeup and beauty products (those without health effects), we could use 1970s technology to maintain a Mars base.  It's just that that is never going to happen.

Even if Musk and other billionaires just donated the amounts necessary for a return vehicle, they'd be ripped apart on Earth, for not using those vast resources into making their nests more comfortable instead. Think of the children dying from malnutrition and so on.  (Even though the last fifty years have shown that every cent you put into feeding them, goes directly into making the next generation larger, and they will suffer from malnutrition at least as bad, but also expect Westerners to feed them too because Slavery and Racism.)

I would seriously expect some politically correct governments to just try and reappropriate those funds into their own social programs instead, because of Social Justice.  New taxes and surcharges at minimum -- perhaps a "go into space but not as part of a national/international space agency project" fee?

In comparison, the discussion on the funds necessary to send people one way, that is completely different.  You can even argue that the funds spent doing so will mean practical technologies that will help ordinary people here on Earth, just as space research has done this far (because a big part of it is how to keep humans alive in very small boxes for significant periods of time; we're heading such urban human storage arcologies anyway). Plus it is an order of magnitude less in scale, so much more doable.

(It is hard to keep up with the discussion level; whether it is about what we are theoretically capable of, what we are capable of if politicians were less of an obstacle, what is possible in practice with current political currents, or what we should do for credible long-term survival reasons.  Probably should state that right on, to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth due to misunderstanding.)

[coppercone2]

yea when you look at what is happening in those countries that are being offered relief it seems an equal waste of money to space travel, or at least the media coverage makes it seem that way. civil war after civil war

bill gates has alot of patience. sometimes vice news (ok not the best) just makes me think he is keeping the water supplies of the local warlords nice and clean. i think you would need to spend trillions of dollars occupying those countries in order to keep the peace there (and it will still be super bloody, as rome showed thousands of years ago). I mean you got russian communists out, now you got chinese communists going in, same sectarian bullshit going on for the last 60 years...... loopy, at least mars is something new. and if chinese communists take over its just going to get destabilized again.

Clean water is a start but jesus I can't figure out how that is going to improve in the next 100 years. Mars is easy. All the arab spring countries had much better conditions and thats no where near settled.