red750 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 They are about to make a TV show about living on Mars, and the location is Coober Pedy. The commander of the expedition is Capt. Kirk himself, William Shatner. Rumours have it that other stars will be Charlie Sheen, Keanu Reeves and a few others I can't recall. The Herald-Sun only gives a small para, the rest behind the paywall. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) Living in Coober Pedy would have to be pretty much the equivalent of living on Mars, with the only difference being the level of gravity, and the air quality. https://7news.com.au/news/sa/coober-pedy-becomes-red-planet-in-stars-on-mars-c-10510563 Edited May 2 by onetrack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 I've been to Coober Pedy and seen pictures of Mars. They won't have to spend much on the set. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 At least everyone has spelt the Town's name properly.. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 If they want Mars, there's plenty of country in Australia to choose from. Anywhere there's gibber country with hills and mesas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 People who go to Mars better like it because I can't see how they'll ever come back. They are exposed to cosmic rays also. .Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, facthunter said: People who go to Mars better like it because I can't see how they'll ever come back. They are exposed to cosmic rays also. .Nev I guess that’s the main reason they are going underground, like on the Opal fields. The good news is that lava tubes are predicted to be common on Mars, and probably much bigger than the ones on our planet. Cosmonouts would be smart to do their breeding before spending too much time in space. The Soviets pioneered long-term life in zero-G and learned heaps. A few years on Mars is likely to make the human body much less able to survive on Earth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 How much less than earths is the gravitational force there? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 About 38% of Earth’s, so we’d lose muscle and bone mass, grow plurry tall and spindly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Orbitting or the moon would be a lot worse. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said: grow plurry tall and spindly. Like those creepy cratures seen in CCTV and dashcam footage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted May 4 Author Share Posted May 4 https://www.facebook.com/reel/947551653079055 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 Hmm. .I saw something on living in MARS not long ago: However, I foudn this looking for the above; haven't seen it yet; will look this eve.. But, posted so there is balance: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post onetrack Posted May 4 Popular Post Share Posted May 4 I totally fail to understand why those in positions of power are prepared to spend multiple billions - maybe even trillions - to send some of our people to inhabit a totally inhospitable, distant planet, that is utterly desolate and constantly dangerous to the life of any homo sapiens, who would dare venture there. Especially so, when we have a perfectly good planet right here, set up with every single thing we need to exist in comfort - from the perfectly-orchestrated level of constituents in the air we need to breathe - right through to the water, foods, and warmth, we also happen to need. All that is needed, is for that vast sum of money wasted on sending a few humans to Mars, to be spent on fixing up our own humble abode - and especially, to reduce the level of human reproduction. I don't believe any person is mentally tough enough to live in a colony on Mars for the duration of their lifespan. The constant stress and separation will eventually unhinge them. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 Bit like being trapped in submarine but you would be able to see your home as a little blue star far away now and again.. The measure of loneliness and disconnect would be immeasurable. WE were formed here over a long long time. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Marty_d Posted May 5 Popular Post Share Posted May 5 Kind of agree but kind of see the point of it too. Space travel has led to a multitude of inventions that are used in lots of other fields. It seems likely that scientific knowledge will be added to substantially if several people commit slow suicide on Mars. Plus humans are explorers, and like it or not, colonizers. At some point it may become financially viable to settle Mars (even some terraforming, city domes etc). But I definitely agree that the Earth should be looked after first. I mean, look at the good we could do if we got that 378 billion for theoretical submarines, and the 243 billion for rich people to get tax cuts and put the resulting 621 BILLION dollars into transforming the energy grid to renewables, putting in charging and subsidies for electric cars, increase productivity by providing proper levels of government housing for the poor. Possibly even go back to free university education and pay early childhood educators properly, and fund more of them. Wow, just shuffling around the existing dollars could make life on Earth so much better... 1 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I believe that half the money would go STRAIGHT TO THE RICH !. NO CHANCE OF THE GREENS DOING ANY GOOD. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post willedoo Posted May 5 Popular Post Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Marty_d said: But I definitely agree that the Earth should be looked after first. I mean, look at the good we could do if we got that 378 billion for theoretical submarines, and the 243 billion for rich people to get tax cuts and put the resulting 621 BILLION dollars into transforming the energy grid to renewables, putting in charging and subsidies for electric cars, increase productivity by providing proper levels of government housing for the poor. Possibly even go back to free university education and pay early childhood educators properly, and fund more of them. Wow, just shuffling around the existing dollars could make life on Earth so much better... You're right there Marty. We live in a country that spends billions on sports stadiums, while people are living on the streets and waiting three years for hip replacement surgery. 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I've been going through Coober Pedy for so long I can remember the signs" No rates and no services" and "Patrons are requested to not bring explosives into this theatre" I reckon going to mars would not be much worse than going to coober pedy. But it would still make more sense to establish a moon colony first. (1) No atmosphere=no dust. (2) much closer to home. (3) unlimited electrical power from mountain-tops near the poles. (4) I think it would be possible to fling stuff into low moon orbit from a railway line. (5) great soil for growing crops. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I don't really disagree with the better ways to spend the same money....Bob Irvine, who was Australia's best rocket scientist, would and did agree with this completely. BUT, is it the same money? How would making all those rocket guys unemployed help with ( for example ) early childhood education? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 26 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said: How would making all those rocket guys unemployed help with ( for example ) early childhood education? We have a great big greed swamp to drain first. The pool of wealth needs to be stirred up and spread fairly. Then the rocket guys funding could 'trickle down' to be allocated more usefully and fairly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 I landed at Coober Pedy a few years ago and after securing the plane walked over to the deserted terminal, and phoned for a taxi after looking up the number on my phone. After waiting a very long time with no sign of any taxi, I rang again and got through to the driver. He said he was at the airport but I said I couldn’t see him, so I asked ‘which airport?’. He said ‘Ceduna’. Turns out there is no taxi service in Coober Pedy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 Those rocket scientist's. Could be used for GOOD EDUCATION. Unlike my ' demobed soldiers ' . that couldn't teach a dog to sit . It's the best educated teacher, to make the best educated pupils. That is a no brainer . spacesailor 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 It's not necessarily what a teacher KNOWs but his way of dealing with the classroom situation and having the confidence of his pupils We had many "Untrained Graduates" some of whom didn't even last a day on front of the classes . 4 times in 3 years I got sent to schools (in Western Sydney) where teachers would not stay. By the way Not once did I encounter Demobbed ex-service people teaching. I struck a cleaner who had been captured in Tripoly and a few Hungarians that left Budapest after the Russian Tanks rolled in. in 56. Great, but they drank too much. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted May 6 Share Posted May 6 In the mid-1960's when I was attending high school, we had some fairly useless WW2 veterans teaching us, who were nowhere near up to proper teacher standards. They weren't abusive or anything, they were just wafflers, who bored us to tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now