Re: Mars (sparked by RE: true abundance?)

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 02:21:01 MST

Spike Jones wrote:
> I had to respond to this.
> > denis bider wrote:> > Do you mean colonization on Mars or ...
> > >
> > Samantha Atkins wrote: There are several huge problems. Like it being
> > hideously expensive to
> > get much of humanity to Mars and established there.
> Agreed. So dont move much of humanity. Start now and get
> people there by having them be born there. Technically it would
> be necessary to send only one person. Since I now have accepted
> the fact that I will never hear the end of it, I will repeat an earlier
> notion that the minimal Mars colony starts with one person.
> > Like there being no known way the colony could break even or be
> > self-supporting in less than
> > oh about a dozen generations.
> Nonsense, sorry Samantha. The colony would need to be
> self supporting from the time it left the ground. Sending
> supplies would pretty much be outta the question. It is too
> expensive to soft land stuff on Mars, and even with modern
> tech, its hard to hit an exact target. It all goes together in
> one mission. Please keep reading.

Exactly how would you do that? Almost everything it needs for quite
some time will be imported. Especially in manufactured objects. Or do
you think you re going to get enough people to run an economy to
manufacture everything you need (or enough robotics) immediately in the
first shot?

> > Like the dearth of
> > volunteers to go endure utterly horrid conditions and a huge likelihood
> > of death with no discernible golden lining for quite some time.
> Agreed this is a problem, but this crowded planet has over 6E9
> persons to choose from. Also recall that the ideal candidate may
> come from that segment of society that is not accustomed to
> having the chance to do cool things. You are I are used to having
> things go our way, are we not? It does not surprise us when
> good things happen, when we get chances to do stuff.
> But people who are poor, uneducated, unhealthy, etc, do not
> get these chances. This competition is open to *everyone*.

No, it is not. You are going to need highly competent and intelligent
people in such extreme and remote conditions. A mere baby machine, as
some have proposed will not do at all. When the needs are large,
resources are low and risks are high you cannot afford not to send the

> Nowthen, please, everyone here, stop and think hard: what
> skills would *really* be *required* for an astronaut heading
> to Mars to start a colony? I suggest these:
> 1. Determination to survive.
> 2. Low weight.
> 3. Very small appetite.
> 4. Ability to endure loneliness, but with the complementary
> ability to endure more virtual "company" than one could
> possibly imagine.
> 5. Functional uterus.
> 6. Collection of frozen embryos.

This is idiotic. What are these children supposed to survive on? From
where do they get their tools? By whom are they educated and cared
for? By one great uterus woman picked mainly for that and low weight?
And what if anything at all goes wrong in the decade and a half or so
that these children are not productive or dependable? Give me a break.

> Skills that astronauts have had in the past, but would not
> be needed for this mission.
> 1. Education (why would that be needed?)

Sigh. For dealing with all the very complex things that can and are very
likely to go wrong.

> 2. Social graces

Ever tried to live with dozens of children in very tight (not to mention
dangerous and hostile) quarters?

> 3. Literacy (the messages could be translated to and
> from voice.)

Uh, right. What about educating the children? All done by learning
machines we don't have?

> 4. English (messages could be machine translated
> from any language.)
> 5. Legs (Where is she gonna go?)

Sorry. I am getting taken in. This is obviously sick parody.

> > Exactly where do you believe the money will come from to fund such a
> > misadventure?
> Goooood question. The only reason I could think of for a business
> enterprise to take this on is that the communications from the colony
> would be worth a cool fortune. If one could figure out a way to

Why would communication from an illterate cunt (since that is all you
are allowing) and a pack of wild infants and ill-educated children from
millions of miles away at hideous cost be worth anything at all to

> encrypt, receive and sell the email from Mars to those who are interested
> in what the Martians have to say, then private business might be able to
> carry the expense. I would pay 10 bucks for a day's transmissions,
> for instance, and would likely pay that on a 3-4 times a month
> basis. I would estimate 10 million subscribers around the world,
> so the payback would be worth about a 5 billion dollar investment.

OK. Say we find 10 million similarly bored and twisted people. That is
$400 million a year. The cost of the shot to put this thing on Mars is
around $50-100 billion minimum. The cost of food, air, heat and so on
Mars is not easy to calculate as it depends on either sending enough
space factory that is utterly foolproof so said stupid cunt and her
brats can't screw it up or it will be send from earth either should at
least double the cost. So it will take 50 years to pay the initial cost
from the contributions of interested net-geeks. Wonderful This
doesn't even account for subsequent costs.

> To get such a mission down to 5 billion, we would surely need to cut
> some corners, which is why I keep coming back to the single tiny
> person. The lander would need to be very small, and of course
> carry with it all the equipment needed to create an underground
> artificially lit farm. I agree it is a hell of a challenge. A way cool one.

It is impossible and too silly a parody to even be amusing.

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:27 MDT