EthanM 514 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 What do y'all think? There's already a one way trip planned. Sending humans to Mars by the 2030s is affordable, a group of experts finds, but some key changes are needed if it is going to happen. A workshop group of more than 60 individuals representing more than 30 government, industry, academic and other organizations has found that a NASA-led manned mission to Mars is feasible if the space agency's budget is restored to pre-sequestration levels. Putting the first humans on the Red Planet would also require international cooperation and private industry support. Full post. http://www.space.com/24268-manned-mars-mission-nasa-feasibility.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think that we'd need a president that is interested in the betterment of man kind and not some pandering poser before anything like that could happen. Or did you mean the Chinese might do it? 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EthanM 514 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I think that we'd need a president that is interested in the betterment of man kind and not some pandering poser before anything like that could happen. Or did you mean the Chinese might do it? I agree. I look for a private company to be the first ones to actually try it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) That almost scares me more... Mission to Mars brought to you by MONSANTO! Edited February 21, 2014 by Maxwelhse 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EthanM 514 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 http://www.mars-one.com Human Settlement on Mars Mars One will establish a permanent human settlement on Mars. Crews of four will depart every two years, starting in 2024. Our first unmanned mission will be launched in 2018. Join the Global Mars One Community and participate in our mission to Mars. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ktcm7271 999 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 It'll take some tough S.O.B's. 16 months one way in zero gravity, drinking recycled pee and sweat, a strict diet, and cramped quarters just to name a few of the challenges. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JoeAK 337 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 It'll take some tough S.O.B's. 16 months one way in zero gravity, drinking recycled pee and sweat, a strict diet, and cramped quarters just to name a few of the challenges. On top of knowing it's a one way trip, and that they'll die on the red planet. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 With all humor aside, my honest thought is that the first mission would be a one way trip for all of those involved with the technology we're likely to have in the next 15 years. It's an unsavory idea for sure (I also have no doubt that NASA would have no shortage of volunteers), but I think it's about the only way it could genuinely work. I can believe that we could sedate people into 80 hour sleep cycles with only a few hours up and get them here, but having a ship capable of bringing them back (there isn't any ISS in Mars orbit) and ANOTHER 16 months of survival is pretty well out of the question with our probable technology. At the very least we'd have to land a giant rocket (many times larger than the Saturn V, based on my arm chair calculations) AND a martian outpost for replenishing supplies, before even considering the chance of returning our people back to Earth. With all of that said, in 1999 NASA forgot how to do unit conversions (I have a technical education and that is a topic that was beaten into my head like you wouldn't believe... and I'm not qualified to work for NASA) and sent $125 million right past the red planet... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/ I would consider the GW administration to be the lesser of the evils (much like the Romney administration would have been, but the margin would have been much tighter... although the gap grows day by day) but I think he had the right idea in regard to space exploration. Go back to the moon, study it more profoundly, possibly set up a base, and take things from there. I believe we have the technology to do that safely and reliably today. We just have a pussy that hates human thought and excellence in office that would rather steal $1 trillion from all of us to give a bunch of bums "free' healthcare. Above all of that, I think we'd be better off studying our own planet in terms of our oceans. It know more about our moon than we do our seas. We have sent a sub to the depths of the Earth... http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm ...but we still can't send a dude out there to just take a look. Maybe there is nothing to see and no point in doing so... I do know that we don't need multiple space stations and 10x scale Saturn V rockets to find out. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YOT 3,743 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 .....out of this world, man. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 With all humor aside, my honest thought is that the first mission would be a one way trip for all of those involved with the technology we're likely to have in the next 15 years. It's an unsavory idea for sure (I also have no doubt that NASA would have no shortage of volunteers), but I think it's about the only way it could genuinely work. I can believe that we could sedate people into 80 hour sleep cycles with only a few hours up and get them here, but having a ship capable of bringing them back (there isn't any ISS in Mars orbit) and ANOTHER 16 months of survival is pretty well out of the question with our probable technology. At the very least we'd have to land a giant rocket (many times larger than the Saturn V, based on my arm chair calculations) AND a martian outpost for replenishing supplies, before even considering the chance of returning our people back to Earth. With all of that said, in 1999 NASA forgot how to do unit conversions (I have a technical education and that is a topic that was beaten into my head like you wouldn't believe... and I'm not qualified to work for NASA) and sent $125 million right past the red planet... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/ I would consider the GW administration to be the lesser of the evils (much like the Romney administration would have been, but the margin would have been much tighter... although the gap grows day by day) but I think he had the right idea in regard to space exploration. Go back to the moon, study it more profoundly, possibly set up a base, and take things from there. I believe we have the technology to do that safely and reliably today. We just have a pussy that hates human thought and excellence in office that would rather steal $1 trillion from all of us to give a bunch of bums "free' healthcare. Above all of that, I think we'd be better off studying our own planet in terms of our oceans. It know more about our moon than we do our seas. We have sent a sub to the depths of the Earth... http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm ...but we still can't send a dude out there to just take a look. Maybe there is nothing to see and no point in doing so... I do know that we don't need multiple space stations and 10x scale Saturn V rockets to find out. It isn't a matter of having the technology to get them back - it's a matter of expense. As it is, we need to orbit enough fuel to accelerate the craft, then decelerate it, provide course corrections as needed, and upon arrival, maintain orbit, and set down a lander. To plan a return mission, we would also need to orbit enough fuel for a launch from Mars, to accelerate and decelerate it to get back to Earth, plus a shitload more to accelerate all the additional fuel mass several times. The technology is there - the size and expense of the fuel tanks required makes it fiscally unsound. As it is, the plans for radiation shielding on the journey are mediocre at best. Anyone who makes the journey is going to suck up a lot of extra radiation. There are lots of people blowing smoke about a trip to Mars. I don't think we're ready for a long-term mission to another planet. We have another orbital body ridiculously closer - we can get there in a matter of days instead of months, and we know a lot more about it. It isn't identical to Mars, of course - lower gravity, no atmosphere, different surface material - but it's a great place to start. We need to try building a base on Luna before we set our sights on Mars. We'll learn a lot of lessons, at substantially reduced expense and risk. It's better to learn those lessons a few days away from the Earth than several months' journey away. With the right planning, a Lunar rescue mission is possible. Not so for Mars. On the Moon, we can begin to learn how to gather and utilize resources. We already know that there is a huge amount of oxygen bound up in the soil - among other useful resources, including aluminum, titanium, silicon, manganese, magnesium, calcium, and iron. Even carbon and nitrogen are present in small quantities - as well as hydrogen. Learning how to efficiently extract oxygen from local materials, how to gather water on the Moon, perhaps even utilizing local materials for structural purposes - all these things should happen before we head to Mars. There is a wealth of information that future Martian colonist could sorely use, if only we seek to discover it. Maybe a lunar resource station could be profitable, with enough automation - gather oxygen and hydrogen, launch it from the surface, sell it as rocket fuel in Earth orbit, cheaper than it can be drawn up from Earth's comparatively large gravity well. Maybe we could build large structural parts for space stations from Lunar materials, and build a large space station at one of the Lagrange points. Hell, nearly all the materials are present locally to build a giant linear motor - maybe we could build one large enough to launch shit from the surface of the moon without using rocket fuel. It's not practical on Earth, for several reasons - but on the Moon most of those reasons don't apply, and I believe the rest can be overcome. The US contribution to the International Space Station has exceeded $100 billion. For 10 times that, a small Lunar colony could be established inside 15 years. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 It isn't a matter of having the technology to get them back - it's a matter of expense. What you just said right there is exactly what I should have said the first time. Plain and simple, it's a matter of money. We COULD establish a Mars base and some massive rocket to get our people home, I just doubt that anyone would pay for it. My thought at the moment is that it would take several times America's GDP to pull it off... and let's not mince words, ALL space exploration is funded by America these days... The rest of your post is also dead sound logic and truth (I also advocate going back to the moon, but I would first advocate ocean exploration). I just feel your opening statement is absolutely dead on the money and pretty much shuts the book on the topic and leaves no room for debate. Nicely done, yet sadly ended... It's a numbers game and the numbers aren't going to be there. What private entity would do something that has no pay off? It's super fantastic that GOOGLE won the X-Prize which has gotten nothing out of it.. If it wasn't for their crazy investor that wouldn't have happened, and we're talking about GOOGLE... What other corp is going to step up 10,000x fold and get us to Mars... Again, my hat is off to you. You're right on the mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jwulf 179 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 And the nice thing is that a fatwa (sp? Who cares) was issued saying that no Muslims should go to Mars as it is the equivalent if committing suicide... Not PC of me...but are there any Muslim astronauts...or and with the level of intelligence it would take to be one?!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EthanM 514 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) B Edited February 21, 2014 by Ethan M Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 And the nice thing is that a fatwa (sp? Who cares) was issued saying that no Muslims should go to Mars as it is the equivalent if committing suicide... Not PC of me...but are there any Muslim astronauts...or and with the level of intelligence it would take to be one?!? I thought if they died they got 127 virgin... ...boys? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 What's the big hurry? We'll get there eventually. Let's let technology advance for another hundred to a hundred fifty years until we have the means to send and bring people home safely and in less time. 150 years is the blink of an eye in scientific terms. We don't have to go there now just because we can. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Just cutoff the free phones, food stamps and secret service details for ex - government employees and we can fund that........... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 With all humor aside, my honest thought is that the first mission would be a one way trip for all of those involved with the technology we're likely to have in the next 15 years. It's an unsavory idea for sure (I also have no doubt that NASA would have no shortage of volunteers), but I think it's about the only way it could genuinely work. I can believe that we could sedate people into 80 hour sleep cycles with only a few hours up and get them here, but having a ship capable of bringing them back (there isn't any ISS in Mars orbit) and ANOTHER 16 months of survival is pretty well out of the question with our probable technology. At the very least we'd have to land a giant rocket (many times larger than the Saturn V, based on my arm chair calculations) AND a martian outpost for replenishing supplies, before even considering the chance of returning our people back to Earth. With all of that said, in 1999 NASA forgot how to do unit conversions (I have a technical education and that is a topic that was beaten into my head like you wouldn't believe... and I'm not qualified to work for NASA) and sent $125 million right past the red planet... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/ I would consider the GW administration to be the lesser of the evils (much like the Romney administration would have been, but the margin would have been much tighter... although the gap grows day by day) but I think he had the right idea in regard to space exploration. Go back to the moon, study it more profoundly, possibly set up a base, and take things from there. I believe we have the technology to do that safely and reliably today. We just have a pussy that hates human thought and excellence in office that would rather steal $1 trillion from all of us to give a bunch of bums "free' healthcare. Above all of that, I think we'd be better off studying our own planet in terms of our oceans. It know more about our moon than we do our seas. We have sent a sub to the depths of the Earth... http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm ...but we still can't send a dude out there to just take a look. Maybe there is nothing to see and no point in doing so... I do know that we don't need multiple space stations and 10x scale Saturn V rockets to find out. It isn't a matter of having the technology to get them back - it's a matter of expense. As it is, we need to orbit enough fuel to accelerate the craft, then decelerate it, provide course corrections as needed, and upon arrival, maintain orbit, and set down a lander. To plan a return mission, we would also need to orbit enough fuel for a launch from Mars, to accelerate and decelerate it to get back to Earth, plus a shitload more to accelerate all the additional fuel mass several times. The technology is there - the size and expense of the fuel tanks required makes it fiscally unsound. As it is, the plans for radiation shielding on the journey are mediocre at best. Anyone who makes the journey is going to suck up a lot of extra radiation. There are lots of people blowing smoke about a trip to Mars. I don't think we're ready for a long-term mission to another planet. We have another orbital body ridiculously closer - we can get there in a matter of days instead of months, and we know a lot more about it. It isn't identical to Mars, of course - lower gravity, no atmosphere, different surface material - but it's a great place to start. We need to try building a base on Luna before we set our sights on Mars. We'll learn a lot of lessons, at substantially reduced expense and risk. It's better to learn those lessons a few days away from the Earth than several months' journey away. With the right planning, a Lunar rescue mission is possible. Not so for Mars. On the Moon, we can begin to learn how to gather and utilize resources. We already know that there is a huge amount of oxygen bound up in the soil - among other useful resources, including aluminum, titanium, silicon, manganese, magnesium, calcium, and iron. Even carbon and nitrogen are present in small quantities - as well as hydrogen. Learning how to efficiently extract oxygen from local materials, how to gather water on the Moon, perhaps even utilizing local materials for structural purposes - all these things should happen before we head to Mars. There is a wealth of information that future Martian colonist could sorely use, if only we seek to discover it. Maybe a lunar resource station could be profitable, with enough automation - gather oxygen and hydrogen, launch it from the surface, sell it as rocket fuel in Earth orbit, cheaper than it can be drawn up from Earth's comparatively large gravity well. Maybe we could build large structural parts for space stations from Lunar materials, and build a large space station at one of the Lagrange points. Hell, nearly all the materials are present locally to build a giant linear motor - maybe we could build one large enough to launch shit from the surface of the moon without using rocket fuel. It's not practical on Earth, for several reasons - but on the Moon most of those reasons don't apply, and I believe the rest can be overcome. The US contribution to the International Space Station has exceeded $100 billion. For 10 times that, a small Lunar colony could be established inside 15 years. We are not allowed to build bases on the moon... The aliens told us so! Why do you think so much moon imagery is "greyed out" so as to hide the Alien structures on its surface... Why do you think the crew that WENT TO THE MOON had such strange stories about the artifacts they found on the surface... Why do you think that NO ONE EVER went to the moon... as it was all a hoax, done in a Hollywood style studio... Why do you think that the moon landing was uneventful and NOTHING out of the " ordinary " happened... Hmmm.... a lot of contradictions there... very strange indeed... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
magsite20 1,664 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 any settlement will need government so I think we should start sending politicians now. got to keep cost down so it will take a simple plan. plastic bag over the head, bottle of water, tossed out of an airplane. sure some will fail but we've got to be willing to just keep trying over and over till they make it. so let's see for a government you need a president, a vice president, a senate.... I can see this really working out great for Earth and maybe even Mars. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Juggernaut 11,054 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I'd really like to see any new colony free from the burden of Govt... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8fXt4w9y2U Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 My Dad did design work on nuclear engines that were developed for a mars mission years ago. It was the rover project, lots of info out there if you look Jim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unclejake 428 Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 If you listen to some sources, we've already been there. When you can bend time, you can move a bit faster. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 With all humor aside, my honest thought is that the first mission would be a one way trip for all of those involved with the technology we're likely to have in the next 15 years. It's an unsavory idea for sure (I also have no doubt that NASA would have no shortage of volunteers), but I think it's about the only way it could genuinely work. I can believe that we could sedate people into 80 hour sleep cycles with only a few hours up and get them here, but having a ship capable of bringing them back (there isn't any ISS in Mars orbit) and ANOTHER 16 months of survival is pretty well out of the question with our probable technology. At the very least we'd have to land a giant rocket (many times larger than the Saturn V, based on my arm chair calculations) AND a martian outpost for replenishing supplies, before even considering the chance of returning our people back to Earth. With all of that said, in 1999 NASA forgot how to do unit conversions (I have a technical education and that is a topic that was beaten into my head like you wouldn't believe... and I'm not qualified to work for NASA) and sent $125 million right past the red planet... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/ I would consider the GW administration to be the lesser of the evils (much like the Romney administration would have been, but the margin would have been much tighter... although the gap grows day by day) but I think he had the right idea in regard to space exploration. Go back to the moon, study it more profoundly, possibly set up a base, and take things from there. I believe we have the technology to do that safely and reliably today. We just have a pussy that hates human thought and excellence in office that would rather steal $1 trillion from all of us to give a bunch of bums "free' healthcare. Above all of that, I think we'd be better off studying our own planet in terms of our oceans. It know more about our moon than we do our seas. We have sent a sub to the depths of the Earth... http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm ...but we still can't send a dude out there to just take a look. Maybe there is nothing to see and no point in doing so... I do know that we don't need multiple space stations and 10x scale Saturn V rockets to find out. It isn't a matter of having the technology to get them back - it's a matter of expense. As it is, we need to orbit enough fuel to accelerate the craft, then decelerate it, provide course corrections as needed, and upon arrival, maintain orbit, and set down a lander. To plan a return mission, we would also need to orbit enough fuel for a launch from Mars, to accelerate and decelerate it to get back to Earth, plus a shitload more to accelerate all the additional fuel mass several times. The technology is there - the size and expense of the fuel tanks required makes it fiscally unsound. As it is, the plans for radiation shielding on the journey are mediocre at best. Anyone who makes the journey is going to suck up a lot of extra radiation. There are lots of people blowing smoke about a trip to Mars. I don't think we're ready for a long-term mission to another planet. We have another orbital body ridiculously closer - we can get there in a matter of days instead of months, and we know a lot more about it. It isn't identical to Mars, of course - lower gravity, no atmosphere, different surface material - but it's a great place to start. We need to try building a base on Luna before we set our sights on Mars. We'll learn a lot of lessons, at substantially reduced expense and risk. It's better to learn those lessons a few days away from the Earth than several months' journey away. With the right planning, a Lunar rescue mission is possible. Not so for Mars. On the Moon, we can begin to learn how to gather and utilize resources. We already know that there is a huge amount of oxygen bound up in the soil - among other useful resources, including aluminum, titanium, silicon, manganese, magnesium, calcium, and iron. Even carbon and nitrogen are present in small quantities - as well as hydrogen. Learning how to efficiently extract oxygen from local materials, how to gather water on the Moon, perhaps even utilizing local materials for structural purposes - all these things should happen before we head to Mars. There is a wealth of information that future Martian colonist could sorely use, if only we seek to discover it. Maybe a lunar resource station could be profitable, with enough automation - gather oxygen and hydrogen, launch it from the surface, sell it as rocket fuel in Earth orbit, cheaper than it can be drawn up from Earth's comparatively large gravity well. Maybe we could build large structural parts for space stations from Lunar materials, and build a large space station at one of the Lagrange points. Hell, nearly all the materials are present locally to build a giant linear motor - maybe we could build one large enough to launch shit from the surface of the moon without using rocket fuel. It's not practical on Earth, for several reasons - but on the Moon most of those reasons don't apply, and I believe the rest can be overcome. The US contribution to the International Space Station has exceeded $100 billion. For 10 times that, a small Lunar colony could be established inside 15 years. We are not allowed to build bases on the moon... The aliens told us so! Why do you think so much moon imagery is "greyed out" so as to hide the Alien structures on its surface... Why do you think the crew that WENT TO THE MOON had such strange stories about the artifacts they found on the surface... Why do you think that NO ONE EVER went to the moon... as it was all a hoax, done in a Hollywood style studio... Why do you think that the moon landing was uneventful and NOTHING out of the " ordinary " happened... Hmmm.... a lot of contradictions there... very strange indeed... I just hope you're being sarcastic. If not, no point in engaging that. I'd really like to see any new colony free from the burden of Govt... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8fXt4w9y2U I believe this is the finest science fiction novel ever written by man. Heinlein wanted to title it "The Brass Cannon." The publisher overrode him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spacehog 2,218 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 The US contribution to the International Space Station has exceeded $100 billion. For 10 times that, a small Lunar colony could be established inside 15 years. That's only one year of current deficit spending. I vote that we do both...send the current Administration and a majority of Congess on the one-way trip to Mars, and use the savings to set up a colony on the moon next year. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big John! 2,062 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 I believe that Barrack Hussein Obama would be the perfect embassador for US martian relations. His recent foreign policy has proven that he would represent us well on Mars. I say we send him, and his administration in this imperative mission immediately. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 The greatest generation could have done. This current "equal love" generation can't do shit. They drug their kids for school; teach them to devalue the unborn; convinced them that the tools of liberty are evil; and continue to try and alter history to reflect their dumbass ideas in a good light. We are fucked. We ain't going anywhere except down the drain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 any settlement will need government so I think we should start sending politicians now. got to keep cost down so it will take a simple plan. plastic bag over the head, bottle of water, tossed out of an airplane. sure some will fail but we've got to be willing to just keep trying over and over till they make it. so let's see for a government you need a president, a vice president, a senate.... I can see this really working out great for Earth and maybe even Mars. I see no need for the water or airplane. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sobrenegade 795 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Or, selected representatives of the major countries that want to be involved would be fed marijuana brownies (from Colorado, of course) laced with hashish, mescaline, and LSD. Then we'll see who gets to Mars first. Hell, we may have a winner reaching Alpha Centauri before the day is over. Why can't I be serious about these topics today? At my age, I claim to be pleasantly demented. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uzitiger 193 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 And the nice thing is that a fatwa (sp? Who cares) was issued saying that no Muslims should go to Mars as it is the equivalent if committing suicide... Not PC of me...but are there any Muslim astronauts...or and with the level of intelligence it would take to be one?!? That's one good thing about a Mars mission is that the astronauts won't have to put up with any Hajjis on the way there. We wouldn't want a massacre in space like the Ft. Hood one where mission control would hear the obscene screams of allah hu akbar. I believe that Barrack Hussein Obama would be the perfect embassador for US martian relations. His recent foreign policy has proven that he would represent us well on Mars. I say we send him, and his administration in this imperative mission immediately. Obama can't go to Mars due to the Fatwa banning Muslims from going there. Can you imagine what hell it would be to travel with him there and have to hear his donkey braying voice or the fact that he might try to sodomize the other astronauts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big John! 2,062 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 And the nice thing is that a fatwa (sp? Who cares) was issued saying that no Muslims should go to Mars as it is the equivalent if committing suicide... Not PC of me...but are there any Muslim astronauts...or and with the level of intelligence it would take to be one?!? That's one good thing about a Mars mission is that the astronauts won't have to put up with any Hajjis on the way there. We wouldn't want a massacre in space like the Ft. Hood one where mission control would hear the obscene screams of allah hu akbar. I believe that Barrack Hussein Obama would be the perfect embassador for US martian relations. His recent foreign policy has proven that he would represent us well on Mars. I say we send him, and his administration in this imperative mission immediately. Obama can't go to Mars due to the Fatwa banning Muslims from going there. Can you imagine what hell it would be to travel with him there and have to hear his donkey braying voice or the fact that he might try to sodomize the other astronauts? Who said anything about other astronauts? Barry has admitted to fundamentally not liking the good ol' USofA. So what greater mission for someone that is so far superior to all of us minions than for him do deny his faith and go on a mission for the greater good. Quite honestly, with our current (known) technology, I see no reason other than this to even bother. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 And the nice thing is that a fatwa (sp? Who cares) was issued saying that no Muslims should go to Mars as it is the equivalent if committing suicide... Not PC of me...but are there any Muslim astronauts...or and with the level of intelligence it would take to be one?!? That's one good thing about a Mars mission is that the astronauts won't have to put up with any Hajjis on the way there. We wouldn't want a massacre in space like the Ft. Hood one where mission control would hear the obscene screams of allah hu akbar. I believe that Barrack Hussein Obama would be the perfect embassador for US martian relations. His recent foreign policy has proven that he would represent us well on Mars. I say we send him, and his administration in this imperative mission immediately. Obama can't go to Mars due to the Fatwa banning Muslims from going there. Can you imagine what hell it would be to travel with him there and have to hear his donkey braying voice or the fact that he might try to sodomize the other astronauts? I'm thinking airlock malfunction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.