Mars the new game show

Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a place
in history.

Any takers ?

"steve" wrote in message
...
Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a place
in history.

Any takers ?

For this unfinished idea, there shouldn't be any takers.
The idea wants to be filled out with a plausible plan
to actually do it. Yes, it's a tall order; but who
wants to throw away their time into a tiny little
unfinished thing like this?

How about a well organized, tidy construction featuring
an overall outline and a business plan? Namely, where
will the money come from to do it? ??

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 May 23]

On May 22, 10:25*pm, steve wrote:
Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a place
in history.

Any takers ?

The scarey part is one team trying to douse the other simply to win
the prize. I know the human animal well enough that the way you have
set up the game is not a good idea.

In article
,
steve wrote:

Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a place
in history.

Any takers ?

Better yet, a few weeks into the mission send a message that war
between the nations has broken out, and cut communications.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

"Invid Fan" wrote in message
...
In article
,
steve wrote:

Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a
place
in history.

Any takers ?

Better yet, a few weeks into the mission send a message that war
between the nations has broken out, and cut communications.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between
us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS


Zubrin has been doing analog missions here on Terra
surface. He has a lot from those, does this mean
we are at crunch time for doing full-term analog
missions here, no matter what, even if some of the
crew dies? ?? Are we tough enough to do that?

My own thinking is yes, it's time to do those hard
analog missions and yes, we *must* be tough enough
to do it all. At worst, we learn better from a
bad failure here, than if it's out there.

That's two years for an analog Mars and return; it
would cost *far* less than when we actually do it.
And it's a good bet to make the difference between
failure -- and success.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 May 24]

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
news:lb4_j.3627$jA.2469@trndny09...

"Invid Fan" wrote in message
...
In article
,
steve wrote:

Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a place
in history.

Any takers ?

Better yet, a few weeks into the mission send a message that war
between the nations has broken out, and cut communications.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS


Zubrin has been doing analog missions here on Terra
surface. He has a lot from those, does this mean
we are at crunch time for doing full-term analog
missions here, no matter what, even if some of the
crew dies? ?? Are we tough enough to do that?


I think that's called kidnapping, depraved indifference
and murder.



My own thinking is yes, it's time to do those hard
analog missions and yes, we *must* be tough enough
to do it all. At worst, we learn better from a
bad failure here, than if it's out there.

That's two years for an analog Mars and return; it
would cost *far* less than when we actually do it.
And it's a good bet to make the difference between
failure -- and success.



.....said Dr Mengele



Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 May 24]

If we can assume sometime people will visit Mars, surely the more
money available to make it a successful trip the better.
If additional funds can be made available by making it a game show
with product placements, advertising etc. we have increased the
survival chances of the people involved. If national prestige is on
the line as well like in the "Space Race to the Moon" inthe 60's you
will then have a large amount of available resources.
Keep the public involved and they will not mind paying for it.

On May 22, 7:25 pm, steve wrote:
Two teams one from the USA, one made up from a selection of other
countries (EU Russia,Japan, China) are sent to Mars.
The winner is the team that survives the longest.
Sponsership and advertising should cover the costs.
If both teams can survive for a year they will be brought back to
Earth where fame and talk shows will guarantee them riches and a place
in history.

Any takers ?

And you're willing to make us pay how may trillions, not to mention
having to invest decades of valuable time and likely infecting Earth
with Mars spores?
.. - Brad Guth

On May 25, 8:05 pm, steve wrote:
If we can assume sometime people will visit Mars, surely the more
money available to make it a successful trip the better.
If additional funds can be made available by making it a game show
with product placements, advertising etc. we have increased the
survival chances of the people involved. If national prestige is on
the line as well like in the "Space Race to the Moon" inthe 60's you
will then have a large amount of available resources.
Keep the public involved and they will not mind paying for it.

You should move to planet where there's not insurmountable cesspool of
political and religious corruption, greed and arrogance (including an
ongoing process of political, racial and religious cleansing) that's
clearly in charge of your private parts.

We've more than badly invested our best talents and spent our
trillions upon trillions as of just the last few years on behalf of
artificially inflated energy, food, housing and just about everything
else you can think of, as well as having killed off will over a
million of mostly innocent Muslims in the process, not to mention
having killed thousands of our own kind, and otherwise having
traumatized tens of other thousands.

There isn't hardly a cookie left in the jar.
.. - Brad Guth

"steve" wrote in message
...
If we can assume sometime people will visit Mars, surely the more
money available to make it a successful trip the better.
If additional funds can be made available by making it a game show
with product placements, advertising etc. we have increased the
survival chances of the people involved. If national prestige is on
the line as well like in the "Space Race to the Moon" inthe 60's you
will then have a large amount of available resources.
Keep the public involved and they will not mind paying for it.


I think they'll mind watching people die
....live and in living color....don't ya think?

Do we really need to toss someone out the airlock
without a suite to make the point of what happens
if you screw up. She was stating we should do the
long term experiments, just if things go wrong we
don't end the experiment until everyone is dead.
Just to drive the point home.

I don't see why that is necessary, moral or legal in
any way, shape or form whatsoever.