• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One way trip to Mars

Would you take a one way trip to Mars

  • Sign me up

    Votes: 16 32.7%
  • Are you freamin insane?

    Votes: 33 67.3%

  • Total voters
    49
It worked out not only for him, but for Western Civilization in general, anyway. What's the problem? :shrug:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.




In general I agree with what you are saying here.

I'll just add that Columbus's trips to the America's did not end up too well for a lot of Native Americans.

But it doesn't look like there are any Martians, so that shouldn't be a problem on Mars.

Suit up and get aboard!
 
That's my point.

A person let's their home go to hell, a real rat-trap. Leaking roof, termites, plumbing leaking, a/c out, carpet rotted thru, yard dead but for weeds, and the lack of maintenance causing quicker deterioration. All this in part for laziness, in part for being a daydream always pursuing some other project and in part or lack of money for all spent on daydreaming and other projects...

For which the person decides, "you know what would be really cool? Let' finance a beach front house in San Diego. Sure, the payments will be huge, but we'll make them somehow. Then sometimes we can get out of this rat-trap and go stay there on holidays and for vacation. That'd be great!"

And the wife says: "Why can't we FIRST fix up our house?! We can't afford to buy a beach front house in San Diego anyway. Why won't you just FIX OUR HOME!"

Husband: "Where's your spirit of adventure? Your hope for the future? Can't you see us spending Christmas on our beautiful beach in San Diego! Why do you have to always be so negative! So down on everything? Plus we can rent it out when not there and MAKE money on it! I'm certain of it. The realtor who'd get his commission told me so.""

That's what we're reading here. Total neglect of what must be attended to and can be done, for a pipe dream to avoid those obligations and necessities.

It annoys me, greatly, because there are a great many things that need be done, plus very real usable scientific, medical, engineering, physics and even astrophysics research going on, and there is no extra $$$ laying around for a multi-trillion dollar space project that is premature at least by a couple decades.

You are correct in a lot of ways your assessment, especially if public money was proposed to be spent on such a project which I myself would oppose, adamantly so I might add. However if it were a project undertaken by private individuals, then I would be all for it. I prefer to stay on Earth myself if I could get away from all the do gooders feasibly. Unfortunately on this planet that can no longer be accomplished. I would undertake such a project to escape their predations and to live life freely. The technology required to live off planet allows that freedom hence my keenness on pursuing it.
 
What would REALLY work swell would be to bust up an asteroid after using solar sails to alter it's course and speed slightly, so the shotgun effect of all the smaller pieces would obliterate some country, say like N. Korea. Then we could mine the material there on earth. We could use the troops we previously had on the border to do the mining. Thereafter N. Korea would be the new collection site. Sure, a lot would burn up on entry, but it's not like there'd be a shortage.

Should run that by the military. Get the military behind a plan and it's gonna happen. I bet no one would mess with the USA after that, huh?:lol:

That would be a waste of material as most would burn up in the atmosphere. Changing orbits of material you would use elsewhere is also pointless.
 
That would be a waste of material as most would burn up in the atmosphere. Changing orbits of material you would use elsewhere is also pointless.


It was satire.
 
You are correct in a lot of ways your assessment, especially if public money was proposed to be spent on such a project which I myself would oppose, adamantly so I might add. However if it were a project undertaken by private individuals, then I would be all for it. I prefer to stay on Earth myself if I could get away from all the do gooders feasibly. Unfortunately on this planet that can no longer be accomplished. I would undertake such a project to escape their predations and to live life freely. The technology required to live off planet allows that freedom hence my keenness on pursuing it.

If it is a private project that'd be great. And if as profitable as claimed I'm sure people will line up to invest big money.

It'd also make a pretty good scam someone could run on investors.
 
You brought up Columbus and declared it was great for Western civilization. Since you trivial literal genocide of entire races of people and mass slaughter in South, Central and North America, there is nothing to say other than again stating that Columbus did not sail off just to see what was out there. He sailed for India - and failed. In addition to mass genocide and extinctions of human races - a OK with you apparently - the result also was many, many wars.

The Americas was going nowhere and America was already inhabited. So really what you are congratulating is mass genocide, extinctions and wars that benefited your race at the expense of others - and - to be specific - including mine. "Your Western Civilization" warred and slaughtered my people - although technically mine were the only ones to never surrender (to this day) nor defeated. So "Columbus" is the LEAST persuasive example you can give to me.

Notably, you ignored the dangers of biological contamination devastating life on earth, including human life - but then you have made it clear extinction of humans doesn't matter to you. Only the thrill of risk-taking. And if that risks killing everyone and everything it's even better, because what a THRILLING risk that is, huh?

It is not "stodgy" for my taking the position of save our planet, care for our planet, and harvest from our planet first. However, since you seem to not care about the prospect of mass death or even extinction of the human race, there's not much response to give. There is another member of the forum who also has no problem with the extinction of the human race (for being disorderly, not for the sake of curiousity and visions of somehow obtaining vast wealth out-there - like a crazed gold prospect certain there's gold to be had for free in California where everyone supposedly gets rich.)

You don't have a plan. You have a movie script, like thousands of other movie scripts about space.
You probably shouldnt get your 'history' from books that come with crayons and how to draw guides. Oh...wait...you think prior to Columbus' arrival, the indigenous people were peaceful and did NOT go around slaughtering each other. You think it was the Euro settlers that were evil. Pray tell...why do mejicans speak Spanish today? Was than a natural evolution of the Mayan language?
 
In general I agree with what you are saying here.

I'll just add that Columbus's trips to the America's did not end up too well for a lot of Native Americans.

But it doesn't look like there are any Martians, so that shouldn't be a problem on Mars.

Suit up and get aboard!
Prior to Columbus' (and others ) arrival the indigenous folk were not a happy band of land loving hippies. They were warring, brutal, fought and slaughtered one another, seized property, took slaves, in some cases practiced cannibalism, and for their era, were horrible to the land and environment. Europeans simply were better armed, better prepared, more advanced. In short...they did the same things...only better.

I dont know if the Mars trip would actually take place...but I can see a whole lot of people that might be less than thrilled with their current existence or prospects of a future that might think...man...what an experience..and willingly sign up and go.
 
I'm sure there are a few people in this forum that wish I would sign up for this but really I just can't imagine. Apparently there is no shortage of applicants though. Beats the hell outa me why.


"An ambitious project that aims to send volunteers on a one-way trip to Mars unveiled plans for the first private unmanned mission to the Red Planet Tuesday, a robotic vanguard to human colonization that will launch in 2018.

Mars One
external-link.png
invited anyone over age 18 to apply to be an astronaut. About 165,000 people answered the first call for applications, which closed at the end of August. There will be four rounds of selection before the finalists are chosen.


Mars One unveils first stage of plan to colonize Red Planet | Fox News


EDIT: FREAKIN insane :lol:

I wouldn't go, because I like being comfortable and I'm addicted to the internet. (Oh and I have a family :D)

The idea of this happening however makes me giddy as a school girl. I'm however unsure about the seriousness of Mars One. Their website lists only a few employees.

You probably shouldnt get your 'history' from books that come with crayons and how to draw guides. Oh...wait...you think prior to Columbus' arrival, the indigenous people were peaceful and did NOT go around slaughtering each other. You think it was the Euro settlers that were evil. Pray tell...why do mejicans speak Spanish today? Was than a natural evolution of the Mayan language?

Exactly, the Spaniards showed up to hand out hugs to the local populace, and to their surprise the natives ran up to them in and in perfect Spanish said "Si, Senor!"
 
Exactly, the Spaniards showed up to hand out hugs to the local populace, and to their surprise the natives ran up to them in and in perfect Spanish said "Si, Senor!"
Right. At least...what was left of the natives after they had spent hundreds of years slaughtering each other and sacrificing the 'others' to their gods.
 
Prior to Columbus' (and others ) arrival the indigenous folk were not a happy band of land loving hippies. They were warring, brutal, fought and slaughtered one another, seized property, took slaves, in some cases practiced cannibalism, and for their era, were horrible to the land and environment. Europeans simply were better armed, better prepared, more advanced. In short...they did the same things...only better.

I dont know if the Mars trip would actually take place...but I can see a whole lot of people that might be less than thrilled with their current existence or prospects of a future that might think...man...what an experience..and willingly sign up and go.




Obviously different people have different motivations for the things that they do or try to do. Some people would like to go to Mars to advance scientific knowledge.

Others would like to try to ensure the survival of the human race.

And, of course as you say, still others would just like to see and explore the Red Planet.

I don't have a problem with any of these reasons for going to Mars.
 
You probably shouldnt get your 'history' from books that come with crayons and how to draw guides. Oh...wait...you think prior to Columbus' arrival, the indigenous people were peaceful and did NOT go around slaughtering each other. You think it was the Euro settlers that were evil. Pray tell...why do mejicans speak Spanish today? Was than a natural evolution of the Mayan language?


Try reading again. The topic is the dangers of micro-organisms that are invasive. Let me explain what "invasive" means, since clearly you don't understand what that means.

"Invasive species" means that it is a species of life - micro-organism, plant, fish, animal - that is not natural to the area. For that reason, there is no evolved safeguards within nature to keep that species in check. The result frequently is the "invasive" species destroys indigenous species and can severely harm the ecosystem. "Ecosystem" means the living life environment.

Pause for a moment and then read this again, since those are difficult concepts for some people to understand.

In light of that, the topic is not whether "indigenous" peoples to the Americas were good or bad. So I will sidestep your simplistic comment on "indigenous" people of the Americas as if they were all one big tribe all acting the same and the same people. Rather, that diseases brought from the West that were not indigenous to the Americas resulted in literal genocide of peoples to the East, as significant as causing extinction of entire human races and massive deaths among others.

This is getting really complicated, huh? Sorry, I can't draw crayon pictures on the forum to help you understand this high school level complexity. So pause again and read back over it.

Thus, the topic was not your debating old cowboy-and-indian movies and your support of the cowboys. But you'd probably enjoy starting a thread on the topic elsewhere. The topic is the potential danger of bringing invasive micro-organism from elsewhere than earth, since time and again scientific organizations have stated they have discovered "alien" micro-organisms both on the moon, fossils of micro-organisms in meteorites, and the base elements for the formation of micro-organisms.

Granted, you might be a religious zealot who believes that a God make the entire universe singularly for humans and limited life in the universe to earth. You might want to start a topic of that on the Religion Board and possibly would feel more at home there.

Finally, along the long and confusing to you reasoning, the topic is whether there is a danger of bringing an "alien" micro-organism from "space" to earth that is destructive of humans and/or other life forms on earth for which there is no evolved safeguards. Again, you may wish to argue against evolution on the Religion board.

Oh, "alien" in the above paragraph does not mean illegal immigrants. I don't want to confuse you more than your message declares you are. "Alien" in the above paragraph means "not from earth." Since the topic is traveling away from earth and returning material not from earth to earth, "alien" is used in that context.

Pause again, read all of this over again - as this is getting quite long for you and involves more than a single summary statement.

In the context of the above (if you do not understand "context" as I use it here let me know and I will TRY to explain it to you), people of the West brought "invasive" species of micro-organisms that were deadly to many races of humans who had no evolved natural defenses against it, despite being human. However, because they were human, some peoples of some of those races survived. As "alien" micro-organisms are both invasive and alien, it is possible that human life and/or other life on earth would have no direct nor indirect evolved safeguards against such a mirco-organism if it is harmful. The result could be the extinction of the human race.

The response that other member gave to the possible sudden extinction of the human race and/or other species on earth was essentially that he believes we should risk extinction of the human race and any or all other life on earth included for the excitement of taking that risk.

^ That is the topic in relation to Indigenous Americans.
 
Prior to Columbus' (and others ) arrival the indigenous folk were not a happy band of land loving hippies. They were warring, brutal, fought and slaughtered one another, seized property, took slaves, in some cases practiced cannibalism, and for their era, were horrible to the land and environment. Europeans simply were better armed, better prepared, more advanced. In short...they did the same things...only better.

In some ways, your simplistic "them" v. "us" views are certainly easier. Bigotry is simplistic reasoning, isn't it? To just put all White people into a generic "us" and all non-white people into a generic "them," and then debate from that perspective. You also like the simplistic ethic of all evil is justified if anyone else has done it.

I don't want to unsettle your simplistic and false view that all Indigenous peoples were not similar, nor your simplistic and false view that all white people were identical in actions and perspectives either. This is American, "land of the free" and you may proudly fly a Stormfront flag and defend your white pride heritage as a result IF that is what you wish. Whether you actually do or not, I don't know.

As for your having some compulsion to declare loyalty to your white ancestors feeling some need to do so, my only comment is that more Europeans "slaughtered" each other over the Americas than they "slaughtered" Indigenous Americans. What mostly "slaughtered" indigenous people was disease, which inadvertently allowed easy conquest of most American Indigenous peoples due to radically reduced numbers. However, not all were defeated and/or subjugated. "My people" defeated "your white people." Always.

Actually, "my people" "slaughtered" more "Euro settlers" than the other way around. The only wars on USA homeland the USA ever lost was to my people. Three wars, to be exact. three wars your "Euro settlers" lost on continental United States. Even the great Indian killer Andrew Jackson couldn't convince his fellow white people to go try to defeat "my people" anymore. Since this before the governments (state and federal) could go into debt, the wars also could no longer be afforded. Trying to resolve this with the promise of having the land captured also didn't work well since those who captured land would subsequently be "slaughtered" each time.

The desire to defeat "my people" (as you divide up races) was great, as exactly contrary to "your people," my people were not racists and took in large numbers of runaway black slaves, infuriating your murderously and torturously bigoted ancestors - for which I'm certain that they, like your logic, defended such bigotry pointing to cruelty among blacks in African.

Thus your ancestors fought my people hoping to kill or re-enslave those runaway black slaves, and my people fought to stop your people - and pretty much slaughtered "your people." 1 war - USA whites lost. 2nd war - USA whites lost. 3rd war - USA whites lost. I'm certain you didn't know that, as they don't show that in your old cowboy movies.

You know, my slaughtering ancestors. They were particularly good at slaughtering white people. They got along great with all Indigenous Americans and all Africans. There is no known history of them at war with any other indigenous peoples. They only "slaughtered" white people who would build on their land. Or maybe they just enjoyed killing white people, can't know for certain I suppose.

Finally, "Euro settlers" (as you naively call them) gave up trying for which "my people" have held their land before, during and since the "Euro settlers" came along with their "black" slaves - a practice I'm certain you supported and likely wish returned to given Africans also slaughtered each other.

I'm confident that any actual historian would dispute your portrayal of Indigenous Americans along the entire East Coast from Maine to Florida. Your view is based upon watching cowboy movies of wagon trains crossing the Southwest and the plains "Indians." Most of the Great Plains and Southwest Native Americans were bad ass bastards, but they also were rather stupid in my opinion, as in primitive. In your simplistic racial and ethnic "them" v. "us" view of the world, apparently you believe all Native Americans were Apache and Comanche' - since that is what they show in cowboy shows.

I was raised by among a different "tribe" - if it could be called that. As of when I left, they still enjoy killing white people, but only had rare opportunity - fortunately.

These are complicated topics not suited to one-liner generic platitudes.
 
Last edited:
In some ways, your simplistic "them" v. "us" views are certainly easier. Bigotry is simplistic reasoning, isn't it? To just put all White people into a generic "us" and all non-white people into a generic "them," and then debate from that perspective. You also like the simplistic ethic of all evil is justified if anyone else has done it.

I don't want to unsettle your simplistic and false view that all Indigenous peoples were not similar, nor your simplistic and false view that all white people were identical in actions and perspectives either. This is American, "land of the free" and you may proudly fly a Stormfront flag and defend your white pride heritage as a result IF that is what you wish. Whether you actually do or not, I don't know.

As for your having some compulsion to declare loyalty to your white ancestors feeling some need to do so, my only comment is that more Europeans "slaughtered" each other over the Americas than they "slaughtered" Indigenous Americans. What mostly "slaughtered" indigenous people was disease, which inadvertently allowed easy conquest of most American Indigenous peoples due to radically reduced numbers. However, not all were defeated and/or subjugated. "My people" defeated "your white people." Always.

Actually, "my people" "slaughtered" more "Euro settlers" than the other way around. The only wars on USA homeland the USA ever lost was to my people. Three wars, to be exact. three wars your "Euro settlers" lost on continental United States. Even the great Indian killer Andrew Jackson couldn't convince his fellow white people to go try to defeat "my people" anymore. Since this before the governments (state and federal) could go into debt, the wars also could no longer be afforded. Trying to resolve this with the promise of having the land captured also didn't work well since those who captured land would subsequently be "slaughtered" each time.

The desire to defeat "my people" (as you divide up races) was great, as exactly contrary to "your people," my people were not racists and took in large numbers of runaway black slaves, infuriating your murderously and torturously bigoted ancestors - for which I'm certain that they, like your logic, defended such bigotry pointing to cruelty among blacks in African.

Thus your ancestors fought my people hoping to kill or re-enslave those runaway black slaves, and my people fought to stop your people - and pretty much slaughtered "your people." 1 war - USA whites lost. 2nd war - USA whites lost. 3rd war - USA whites lost. I'm certain you didn't know that, as they don't show that in your old cowboy movies.

You know, my slaughtering ancestors. They were particularly good at slaughtering white people. They got along great with all Indigenous Americans and all Africans. There is no known history of them at war with any other indigenous peoples. They only "slaughtered" white people who would build on their land. Or maybe they just enjoyed killing white people, can't know for certain I suppose.

Finally, "Euro settlers" (as you naively call them) gave up trying for which "my people" have held their land before, during and since the "Euro settlers" came along with their "black" slaves - a practice I'm certain you supported and likely wish returned to given Africans also slaughtered each other.

I'm confident that any actual historian would dispute your portrayal of Indigenous Americans along the entire East Coast from Maine to Florida. Your view is based upon watching cowboy movies of wagon trains crossing the Southwest and the plains "Indians." Most of the Great Plains and Southwest Native Americans were bad ass bastards, but they also were rather stupid in my opinion, as in primitive. In your simplistic racial and ethnic "them" v. "us" view of the world, apparently you believe all Native Americans were Apache and Comanche' - since that is what they show in cowboy shows.

I was raised by among a different "tribe" - if it could be called that. As of when I left, they still enjoy killing white people, but only had rare opportunity - fortunately.

These are complicated topics not suited to one-liner generic platitudes.
Look how cute you are with your little outrage and pathetic attempt to try to make 'history' racist.

:lamo

Id suggest you are 'better than that'...but I'm not sure I see evidence to the contrary.
 
Look how cute you are with your little outrage and pathetic attempt to try to make 'history' racist.

:lamo

Id suggest you are 'better than that'...but I'm not sure I see evidence to the contrary.

Just trying to make the topic easier for you. Did it help you? :mrgreen:
 
If it is a private project that'd be great. And if as profitable as claimed I'm sure people will line up to invest big money.

It'd also make a pretty good scam someone could run on investors.

True dat.
 
Just trying to make the topic easier for you. Did it help you? :mrgreen:
Your moronic foray itno racism? Nope...didnt do a thing for me.Frankly...It didnt do much for you either...but if thats the best you have, I guess it will have to do.
 
Trip to Mars is absurd IMO.

If we want to make a huge government program to rival the early Moon race days, you have two glaringly wonderful options today, both of which could spur far more economic growth as a side-effect:

1. Massive Medical Science projects that involve the world and as many people via internet as possible. not this map the brain stuff, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to what the space program would cost, I mean 10x the size/scope, maybe 100x (you get the idea)
Diabetes, Cancer, Heart Disease, hell anything that kills our kids, the list is endless. And like the international space station, it would be global, big-tent.

2. Artificial intelligence - the implications for technology, feeding the world, etc., staggering. It would potentially be very disruptive if we achieved it though, and lots of old traditionalist outrage and religious backlash, so this one is a complete pipe dream. Have a thinking machine online by 2030. Someone's gonna do it one day ;0

We have such a staggering number of frontiers to push on that are far more immediate, and pertinent to our lives and the lives of our children. Trip to Mars is anything *mars* is just a big waste IMO.

We did the moon for military reasons, we didn't do it purely for the science btw. (talking out of my arse, sorry)
 
Try reading again. The topic is the dangers of micro-organisms that are invasive. Let me explain what "invasive" means, since clearly you don't understand what that means.

"Invasive species" means that it is a species of life - micro-organism, plant, fish, animal - that is not natural to the area. For that reason, there is no evolved safeguards within nature to keep that species in check. The result frequently is the "invasive" species destroys indigenous species and can severely harm the ecosystem. "Ecosystem" means the living life environment.

Pause for a moment and then read this again, since those are difficult concepts for some people to understand.

In light of that, the topic is not whether "indigenous" peoples to the Americas were good or bad. So I will sidestep your simplistic comment on "indigenous" people of the Americas as if they were all one big tribe all acting the same and the same people. Rather, that diseases brought from the West that were not indigenous to the Americas resulted in literal genocide of peoples to the East, as significant as causing extinction of entire human races and massive deaths among others.

This is getting really complicated, huh? Sorry, I can't draw crayon pictures on the forum to help you understand this high school level complexity. So pause again and read back over it.

Thus, the topic was not your debating old cowboy-and-indian movies and your support of the cowboys. But you'd probably enjoy starting a thread on the topic elsewhere. The topic is the potential danger of bringing invasive micro-organism from elsewhere than earth, since time and again scientific organizations have stated they have discovered "alien" micro-organisms both on the moon, fossils of micro-organisms in meteorites, and the base elements for the formation of micro-organisms.

Granted, you might be a religious zealot who believes that a God make the entire universe singularly for humans and limited life in the universe to earth. You might want to start a topic of that on the Religion Board and possibly would feel more at home there.

Finally, along the long and confusing to you reasoning, the topic is whether there is a danger of bringing an "alien" micro-organism from "space" to earth that is destructive of humans and/or other life forms on earth for which there is no evolved safeguards. Again, you may wish to argue against evolution on the Religion board.

Oh, "alien" in the above paragraph does not mean illegal immigrants. I don't want to confuse you more than your message declares you are. "Alien" in the above paragraph means "not from earth." Since the topic is traveling away from earth and returning material not from earth to earth, "alien" is used in that context.

Pause again, read all of this over again - as this is getting quite long for you and involves more than a single summary statement.

In the context of the above (if you do not understand "context" as I use it here let me know and I will TRY to explain it to you), people of the West brought "invasive" species of micro-organisms that were deadly to many races of humans who had no evolved natural defenses against it, despite being human. However, because they were human, some peoples of some of those races survived. As "alien" micro-organisms are both invasive and alien, it is possible that human life and/or other life on earth would have no direct nor indirect evolved safeguards against such a mirco-organism if it is harmful. The result could be the extinction of the human race.

The response that other member gave to the possible sudden extinction of the human race and/or other species on earth was essentially that he believes we should risk extinction of the human race and any or all other life on earth included for the excitement of taking that risk.

^ That is the topic in relation to Indigenous Americans.

Condensing your post it boils down to: Their might be space microbes---->they might come back to Earth----->they might be bad---->don't go to space.

We've recognized the possibility since the dawn of the space program which is why the Apollo astronauts had to be quarantined before being allowed to leave the mobile quarantine facility. It was considered highly unlikely then and just as unlikely today that exobiological pathogens exist in the Solar System, moreover that such pathogens exist and are a threat to humanity is even lower. As a result we've taken precautions for this extremely outside risk and forged ahead. This is permanently self-limiting logic. The same could be said of drilling into the Earth, we don't know what kind of extremophiles could be down there that have had little to no contact with the rest of our biological habitat and thus could be potentially take the form of an aggressive microbial species or rampant pathogen. Both of this is extremely unlikely however and the benefits vastly outweigh the almost implausible risks.
 
If they are going to do it they need to first send a lot of people and resources there first.

ALSO, these land rover things they send there, they need to send ways for them to grow plants there. I don't think there's a lot of oxygen on mars. And not sure about the water there.

Then again, if they do all the math and send so many supplies AND resources there - for everyone's lifetime and more - then they could possibly be alright.
 
Would it be legal for anyone going on the trip to pray out loud before takeoff?
 
I'm sure there are a few people in this forum that wish I would sign up for this but really I just can't imagine. Apparently there is no shortage of applicants though. Beats the hell outa me why.


"An ambitious project that aims to send volunteers on a one-way trip to Mars unveiled plans for the first private unmanned mission to the Red Planet Tuesday, a robotic vanguard to human colonization that will launch in 2018.

Mars One
external-link.png
invited anyone over age 18 to apply to be an astronaut. About 165,000 people answered the first call for applications, which closed at the end of August. There will be four rounds of selection before the finalists are chosen.


Mars One unveils first stage of plan to colonize Red Planet | Fox News


EDIT: FREAKIN insane :lol:
I would like to sign up all Washington's politicians, they asked me to do this for them, I will provide you with their written request statements later, it's classified until they land on Mars.
 
Back
Top Bottom