> >[spike] feels self conscious when I post goofiness, knowing
> >that the more serious, focussed crowd is reading.
>
> Rob Harris Cen-IT wrote:Serious crowd? You mean the superficial
> primal-intellectual-respect seekers? Bugger that !
OK, consider it buggered. {8-] The long time insiders may not be aware of the inherent entertainment value of our own list. My friends, we are hilarious. And we dont even know it. When I introduced my sister in law to the notion of cryonics she started laughing. When I told her most cryonauts freeze only their heads, she nearly wet her diapers. We extropians reinforce each other: we dont even realize how out on the edge we are.
Of course, I like it out here. {8^D
The 30th anniversary of the moon landing made me realize I neglected an illustrative example. Look at the *size* of the lunar module. Compare it with the immensity of the Saturn V. It took one helllll of a mighty rocket (one which we dont have anymore) to get that leeeeetle spindly thing to soft land on the moon! Mars is waaay farther away, (~7 months vs ~3 days) and it takes more fuel to soft land, since Mars has twice the gravity of the moon. Now look at the size of the Roy Wolford's Biosphere experiment.
So, Rob, once again, I will *very carefully* and sensitively suggest (hoping not to generate an avalanche of canardic screeds) that the first Mars colony, if attempted before nanotech, will be require a single verrrry tiny caloric restricted woman, on a one-way mission, with one hell of a lot of courage and determination. Wise cracks are allowed, even encouraged, but do insert a grain of serious thought in reply posts, such as: how much would you estimate would be the weight of a reasonable minimal habitat for one person. Give me that, and I will estimate for you how many shuttle launches it would take to make that happen. spike