"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.