StarGateWars Forums

Removed

whos that astronaut that go on that mission knowing he wont return by choice

Removed

the human nature wont let a person despite his condition to have that fate.

The feasibility of going to Mars depends on whether you believe we went to the moon or not. Move try trying to escape conspiracy theories though.

A one way trip is a retarded idea. For starters, that is why we have drones.

Removed

How are we going to pay for this then when we're all broke and starving?

Oh, I know, we can borrow it from our friends over in China...

This is a joke.

I just had a look at the board and there isn't a single thread that is titled the new world order or NWO... Why did you feel the need to add that Kitfox?

What the HECK would we get out of a one way trip besides radio transmissions and dead bodies?

Alpha13snake wrote:How are we going to pay for this then when we're all broke and starving?

It's a hypothetical question.

You don't PAY for a hypothetical question.

Z E R O wrote:

Alpha13snake wrote:How are we going to pay for this then when we're all broke and starving?

It's a hypothetical question.

You don't PAY for a hypothetical question.

OK, hyopthetically how are we to pay for this?

Does this idea not include having to pay for materials and such?

All the problems in the world and your wanting to think about going to Mars...

Alpha13snake wrote:

Z E R O wrote:

Alpha13snake wrote:How are we going to pay for this then when we're all broke and starving?

It's a hypothetical question.

You don't PAY for a hypothetical question.

OK, hyopthetically how are we to pay for this?

Does this idea not include having to pay for materials and such?

All the problems in the world and your wanting to think about going to Mars...

Seriously, is this necessary? He's asking people they're opinions on a simple question, you're making this way more complicated than it has to be.

Basically, if HUMANITY (not the west, not china, not anyone in particular) had the Funds/Technology to send a shuttle to mars should it be manned, or drone operated... discuss pro's and cons of either. Remember, this has nothing to do with the REAL WORLD. It's just a purely hypothetical question.

Now state your opinion as you're not contributing anything to the conversation except being a troll.

Edit- Pardon me for my mislabeling the question, it was actually would it be better to send a human to mars to stay, or one to return..

Return I think, if we're speaking on a first time basis. Eventually, you'll need to have men stay there, whether for a week or a month, scientists who go and study on the planet itself. Having astronauts just stay there for too extended a period of time will be useless I think, better yet to have a sort of cycle or shifts of 2 weeks or so with data constantly being collected during the stay and analysed when back on earth.

Z E R O wrote:Now state your opinion as you're not contributing anything to the conversation except being a troll.

Don't call me a troll because I ask a valid question...

Who would benefit from this exactly & how?

This is a silly idea, as we have already had drones on Mars haven't we? Rover anyone?

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/home/

Sending a man there is pointless at this point in time...

We should be focused on renewable energy before we set our eyes on sending limited resources to distant planets at great expense to the common man.

We haven't even explored our own oceans properly yet. So why should we want to go to Mars, which for all intents and purposes is a dead planet?

Alpha13snake wrote:

Z E R O wrote:Now state your opinion as you're not contributing anything to the conversation except being a troll.

Don't call me a troll because I ask a valid question...

I'm calling you a troll because he asked a simple question and you're attempting to pick it apart and make it into something it's not. It doesn't matter whether or not it's possible, beneficial, or economically feasible at this time or at any point in the future. It's just a question, a what if question. Which so far you have avoided altogether in order to pursue your own personal agenda.

It really is a simple question I don't get why you are having such a hard time grasping the concept of it. Not everything has to be serious. It's a fun question to consider, instead of like Kit said, the typical NWO/chemtrail/fluoride/bankster/"Conspiracy" ect topics that the serious discussion section typically contains.

Anyways, enough arguing with you.

My opinion on the question is, by the way.. That sending a man alone to mars to stay and research seems to be kind of pointless without bringing him back.. Perhaps if the people/government/corporation sending this person to mars didn't have the resources to be able to fund a round trip, they should consider waiting on it. I do see the benefit of having a human over a unmanned drone... but as far as I know there wouldn't be ways to properly communicate earthside (or at least without massive delays) and the person researching would probably perish once his food/water supplies ran out. If they can't afford to bring him back, then they can't afford to send him water or food either.

The only reason I can think of to leave anyone on mars would be to estabilesh some sort of... colony. Which would take far more than one person, and far greater technology than we currently have.

Simple nether, why should we go to mars. Its a dry rock with no visible or reasonably applications to our survival. Face it we have killed this planet, we should put our resources in to making space travel quicker so we can get out of our little solar system and see if we can find a suitable planet to colonizes because it won't be long before we have killed this planet off.

If i had to chose, Return Trip. Bring back samples from the surfaces. A suicide Trip doesn't have anyway applications unless they send one of the resources ships back with samples.