How far into space will man reach?

It's obvious man is going to walk on Mars in our lifetime but how far into space do you think man can travel in the oh let's say next 1 million years(if we exist that long)? I think at least we'll be able to reach a close star within some thousand years, at least if we can build somespaceship with ecosystem.but I think after that I don't know, I don't have great imagination about this. What you think?

We'll reach the end of the universe and just fly around in nothingness.

1million years? we'll leave the galaxy. but at that point will we still be considered humans?comp_atkins

eventually well get out og this solar system, and probaly outta this ghalxyspamsauce

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]1million years? we'll leave the galaxy. but at that point will we still be considered humans?charlesdarwin55

eventually well get out og this solar system, and probaly outta this ghalxyspamsauce

I like to watch documentaries of the universe.They're always saying it's an exciting time because a lot is happening and a lot is becoming possible.

Who knows.

Absolutely no idea. With current rocket based tech we'll barely get past Mars. No one can predict what breakthrough in tech could occur and hence what will be possible. mucgoo

They say with our current technology we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Good point didn't think about that.[QUOTE="spamsauce"]eventually well get out og this solar system, and probaly outta this ghalxycomp_atkins

Not far. I'm predicting most of humanity will die soon and technology will just restart.

[QUOTE="mucgoo"] Nasa is working on a propulsion engine that is way more intense than any rocket. If it works, It will be both way faster and more efficient. I'll see if i can find a link or some info on it. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/propulsion_space.htmlLost-Memory

Soon as we find the nearest mass relay we'll be solid.fidosim

They say with our current technology we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

Pikdum

Soon as we find the nearest mass relay we'll be solid.fidosim

They say with our current funding we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

Pikdum

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to cough up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

They say with our current funding we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to coutgh up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

They say with our current funding we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

charlesdarwin55

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to coutgh up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

As long as you have plenty of Oxygen, food, water, and a way for them to exercise so their tissue doesn't waste, I don't see why not.

Advanced technolgy will only make it easier. We could already do it...

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to coutgh up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

As long as you have plenty of Oxygen, food, water, and a way for them to exercise so their tissue doesn't waste, I don't see why not.

Advanced technolgy will only make it easier. We could already do it...

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to coutgh up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

Urworstnhtmare

As long as you have plenty of Oxygen, food, water, and a way for them to exercise so their tissue doesn't waste, I don't see why not.

Advanced technolgy will only make it easier. We could already do it...

I believe oxygen would be made from the water on board (Hydrogen). I saw on the History channel that at the very least each astronaut on Mars could live off of 3 gallons of water a day.

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"] I don't think it's just the money, it'll take 6 months at least getting to mars, than staying ther until mars & earth are close again at least some months & then 6 months back to earth. Will the austronats even survive?Pikdum

As long as you have plenty of Oxygen, food, water, and a way for them to exercise so their tissue doesn't waste, I don't see why not.

Advanced technolgy will only make it easier. We could already do it...

I believe oxygen would be made from the water on board (Hydrogen). I saw on the History channel that at the very least each astronaut on Mars could live off of 3 gallons of water a day.

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

As long as you have plenty of Oxygen, food, water, and a way for them to exercise so their tissue doesn't waste, I don't see why not.

Advanced technolgy will only make it easier. We could already do it...

comp_atkins

I believe oxygen would be made from the water on board (Hydrogen). I saw on the History channel that at the very least each astronaut on Mars could live off of 3 gallons of water a day.

Hey, Its sanitary. :P

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

As long as you have plenty of Oxygen, food, water, and a way for them to exercise so their tissue doesn't waste, I don't see why not.

Advanced technolgy will only make it easier. We could already do it...

comp_atkins

I believe oxygen would be made from the water on board (Hydrogen). I saw on the History channel that at the very least each astronaut on Mars could live off of 3 gallons of water a day.

I have no idea how far out we can reach, but currently Voyager 1 is the furthest away from the earth any human made object is... Or was it Voyager 2? horgen123

[QUOTE="horgen123"]I have no idea how far out we can reach, but currently Voyager 1 is the furthest away from the earth any human made object is... Or was it Voyager 2? charlesdarwin55

It's obvious man is going to walk on Mars in our lifetime but how far into space do you think man can travel in the oh let's say next 1 million years(if we exist that long)? I think at least we'll be able to reach a close star within some thousand years, at least if we can build somespaceship with ecosystem.but I think after that I don't know, I don't have great imagination about this. What you think?

charlesdarwin55

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

They say with our current funding we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

Urworstnhtmare

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to cough up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

I think even in the far, far distant future, space travel will still be limited to our galaxy alone.

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

They say with our current funding we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

sSubZerOo

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to cough up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

it is ENTIRELY budget reasons. we could get it done within 15 years with proper funding. we DO have the technology. I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to cough up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

blackacidevil96

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

it is ENTIRELY budget reasons. we could get it done within 15 years with proper funding. we DO have the technology. I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

Ok please point them out.. Because A) Vaste distance that will stretch the fuel significantly.. B) 200 days at least in which a crew of some number will be eating, drinking and using resources.. This is before they even get to the planet.. C) Landing on a planet that has never been done before in a man made object.. Have to take into account that a dust storm may completely prevent their window of ever returning.. Leading them to starving to death... D) They have to wait well over a year for Mars and the Earth are nearest again to make the voyage back... Leading to another 200 days at least.. E) Absolutely NO chance of aborting the mission, once your on it there is no turning back.. This is completely unlike our Lunar landings..

There are numerous other problems that can occur from this.. There is no way in hell we will get there in 15 years time.. I have not ever seen a estimate of that.. The only estimate I have seen is 2050 and I find that doubtful.

[QUOTE="Urworstnhtmare"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

They say with our current funding we can make it to Mars in a little over 200 days.

sSubZerOo

Fixed.

We have the technology... No one is really willing to cough up the dough... The US government basically slashed its Space budget after they reached the moon...

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

How couldn't they make a journey back? Every 2 years Earth and Mars are at their closest points. It takes 6 months to get there which means they have a year to stay and another 6 months to travel back. It fits perfectly together. If there are 3 people on board that uses 3 gallons of water a day each for 2 years then the total outcome of water needed would be 6,570 gallons if I did the math right. If I remember right, our shuttles can carry much more than this. (not too sure though)

To be honest, technology wise we are closer to being able to go to Mars now than we were able to go to the Moon in 1969. I don't feel like researching the rest of the information. But yes, funding is our main problem.

As others have said, the possibility to going to Mars is in our lifetime. The probability however, is being hindered by red tape and greedy politicians of the day.

Although it will be unfortunate, but the current system won't change unless something extremely drastic occurs. For example, say that the effects of global warming are more intense than anticipated, and entire countries become engulfed in conditions that cannot sustain life (drastic example indeed).

However, colonizing the Moon is the most logical step to take. Why?

Well then..

1. It's right next to us. We won't need to have as much resources to start an expedition to colonize the Moon compared to Mars.

2. We know how to get to the Moon already.

3. Once we know how to build a sustainable colony (complete with a breathable atmosphere and maybe some terraforming) on the Moon, we can modify the construction and procedure for the expedition to Mars. When this occurs, we should have better technology.

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

it is ENTIRELY budget reasons. we could get it done within 15 years with proper funding. we DO have the technology. I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

Ok please point them out.. Because A) Vaste distance that will stretch the fuel significantly.. B) 200 days at least in which a crew of some number will be eating, drinking and using resources.. This is before they even get to the planet.. C) Landing on a planet that has never been done before in a man made object.. Have to take into account that a dust storm may completely prevent their window of ever returning.. Leading them to starving to death... D) They have to wait well over a year for Mars and the Earth are nearest again to make the voyage back... Leading to another 200 days at least.. E) Absolutely NO chance of aborting the mission, once your on it there is no turning back.. This is completely unlike our Lunar landings..

There are numerous other problems that can occur from this.. There is no way in hell we will get there in 15 years time.. I have not ever seen a estimate of that.. The only estimate I have seen is 2050 and I find that doubtful.

I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

blackacidevil96

:|

Best post of the day.

PunishedOne

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

Pikdum

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

Personally, I'd rather dig a tunnel through the center of the earth. About as implausible, but might pay itself off via raw materials.

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

Pikdum

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

This just isn't gonna work, the moon has low gravity.. Your going to see adverse health effects on people that intend to stay there for a long time.

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

sSubZerOo

it is ENTIRELY budget reasons. we could get it done within 15 years with proper funding. we DO have the technology. I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

Ok please point them out.. Because A) Vaste distance that will stretch the fuel significantly.. B) 200 days at least in which a crew of some number will be eating, drinking and using resources.. This is before they even get to the planet.. C) Landing on a planet that has never been done before in a man made object.. Have to take into account that a dust storm may completely prevent their window of ever returning.. Leading them to starving to death... D) They have to wait well over a year for Mars and the Earth are nearest again to make the voyage back... Leading to another 200 days at least.. E) Absolutely NO chance of aborting the mission, once your on it there is no turning back.. This is completely unlike our Lunar landings..

There are numerous other problems that can occur from this.. There is no way in hell we will get there in 15 years time.. I have not ever seen a estimate of that.. The only estimate I have seen is 2050 and I find that doubtful.

A) the total delta V required to get from earth to mars and back is under 10km/s. this corresponds to around 1 million lbs of propellant. this can be done in several launches. that is assuming we bring all fuel with us. when we could infact synthesize fuel on the martian surface in the form of methane. methane engines have a similar efficiency to current kerosene engines which are commonplace. we have engines that are physically capable of making the inspace transfer. the J-2X in development would do it. even the RL10-B2s could complete the objected in the traditional apporach using the solution of lamberts problem as the nominal trajectory. though as somone said earlier. advanced propulsion systems in development could complete the journey in under 3 months. mars missions also have a 30 day window of direct return abort capabilities. fuel is no problem would be the short answer.

B) food and water for 200 days isnt tough. like at all.... especially if we can pull water from the martian surface. give me a couple hours ill tell you how much is needed for a 180 day mission. my senior design project is a manned mission to a NEO with a maximum mission durration of 180 days. so one of my group members has that calculated somewhere.

C) we land objects on mars quite often. yes its dangerous. but nothing in space travel isnt. the main issue being deploying a chute at supersonic speeds. though we know how to design for this. and we have done it. we can land stuff on the planet. it would just be done in pieces.

D) send the food and water ahead of time on an un manned mission. problem solved.

E) as i said earlier there is a 30 day free return window.

current estimates are based on funding available. if we have the proper funding it can be done in less.

I graduate in 1 month with a BS in Aerospace engineering. my focus is in in space propulsion but i also take graduate level courses in statisitcal orbit determination. my senior design project as also been accepted into a NASA design competition in june. Ive also worked internships with NASA.....designing rockets for them. im well aware of their capabilites. not to mention this would more than likley be an international effort.

any questions? this is all top of my head stuff. if you want more accurate numbers i can get them no problem.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

it is ENTIRELY budget reasons. we could get it done within 15 years with proper funding. we DO have the technology. I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

blackacidevil96

Ok please point them out.. Because A) Vaste distance that will stretch the fuel significantly.. B) 200 days at least in which a crew of some number will be eating, drinking and using resources.. This is before they even get to the planet.. C) Landing on a planet that has never been done before in a man made object.. Have to take into account that a dust storm may completely prevent their window of ever returning.. Leading them to starving to death... D) They have to wait well over a year for Mars and the Earth are nearest again to make the voyage back... Leading to another 200 days at least.. E) Absolutely NO chance of aborting the mission, once your on it there is no turning back.. This is completely unlike our Lunar landings..

There are numerous other problems that can occur from this.. There is no way in hell we will get there in 15 years time.. I have not ever seen a estimate of that.. The only estimate I have seen is 2050 and I find that doubtful.

A) the total delta V required to get from earth to mars and back is under 10km/s. this corresponds to around 1 million lbs of propellant. this can be done in several launches. that is assuming we bring all fuel with us. when we could infact synthesize fuel on the martian surface in the form of methane. methane engines have a similar efficiency to current kerosene engines which are commonplace. we have engines that are physically capable of making the inspace transfer. the J-2X in development would do it. even the RL10-B2s could complete the objected in the traditional apporach using the solution of lamberts problem as the nominal trajectory. though as somone said earlier. advanced propulsion systems in development could complete the journey in under 3 months. mars missions also have a 30 day window of direct return abort capabilities. fuel is no problem would be the short answer.

B) food and water for 200 days isnt tough. like at all.... especially if we can pull water from the martian surface. give me a couple hours ill tell you how much is needed for a 180 day mission. my senior design project is a manned mission to a NEO with a maximum mission durration of 180 days. so one of my group members has that calculated somewhere.

C) we land objects on mars quite often. yes its dangerous. but nothing in space travel isnt. the main issue being deploying a chute at supersonic speeds. though we know how to design for this. and we have done it. we can land stuff on the planet. it would just be done in pieces.

D) send the food and water ahead of time on an un manned mission. problem solved.

E) as i said earlier there is a 30 day free return window.

current estimates are based on funding available. if we have the proper funding it can be done in less.

I graduate in 1 month with a BS in Aerospace engineering. my focus is in in space propulsion but i also take graduate level courses in statisitcal orbit determination. my senior design project as also been accepted into a NASA design competition in june. Ive also worked internships with NASA.....designing rockets for them. im well aware of their capabilites. not to mention this would more than likley be an international effort.

any questions? this is all top of my head stuff. if you want more accurate numbers i can get them no problem.

Thats 200 days just to get there.. They than have to wait another year at least before they can even plan on going back.. 30 day window out of a journey that is going to be over 2 years? Thats not a good return window.

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

sSubZerOo

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

This just isn't gonna work, the moon has low gravity.. Your going to see adverse health effects on people that intend to stay there for a long time.

Ok, feel free to call me out on this, but this is solved via sci-fi: Rotating stations. (Science fiction generally becomes science)

The colony doesn't have to be ON the Moon, it could be orbitting it with a rotating cylinder that provides artifical gravity. The centrifugal forces generated by the rotation are enough to give a feel of gravity. See here in this fan-made model of the Babylon 5 station:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd4VHNQZpiw

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

[QUOTE="PunishedOne"]

sSubZerOo

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

This just isn't gonna work, the moon has low gravity.. Your going to see adverse health effects on people that intend to stay there for a long time.

Yes, this is actually a problem scientists are looking into. Low gravity has an effect over ones bone mass, it causes it to decay in a sense. However this can be countered by daily exercise with weights wrapped around you (such as running a treadmill or weightlifting). Its not completely effective but it makes a difference until a better solution is found.

Assuming unlimited funding we probably have the technology to make advancements right now that are currently thought of as only being Science Fiction fodder.

For one, long distance travel in ZERO G would require either some form of total cryo sleep or some form of simulated gravity. I watched a NOVA Now episode not too long ago that touched on this very issue and they suggested a spinning ship like the one seen in 2001 ( the movie ).

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Ok please point them out.. Because A) Vaste distance that will stretch the fuel significantly.. B) 200 days at least in which a crew of some number will be eating, drinking and using resources.. This is before they even get to the planet.. C) Landing on a planet that has never been done before in a man made object.. Have to take into account that a dust storm may completely prevent their window of ever returning.. Leading them to starving to death... D) They have to wait well over a year for Mars and the Earth are nearest again to make the voyage back... Leading to another 200 days at least.. E) Absolutely NO chance of aborting the mission, once your on it there is no turning back.. This is completely unlike our Lunar landings..

There are numerous other problems that can occur from this.. There is no way in hell we will get there in 15 years time.. I have not ever seen a estimate of that.. The only estimate I have seen is 2050 and I find that doubtful.

sSubZerOo

A) the total delta V required to get from earth to mars and back is under 10km/s. this corresponds to around 1 million lbs of propellant. this can be done in several launches. that is assuming we bring all fuel with us. when we could infact synthesize fuel on the martian surface in the form of methane. methane engines have a similar efficiency to current kerosene engines which are commonplace. we have engines that are physically capable of making the inspace transfer. the J-2X in development would do it. even the RL10-B2s could complete the objected in the traditional apporach using the solution of lamberts problem as the nominal trajectory. though as somone said earlier. advanced propulsion systems in development could complete the journey in under 3 months. mars missions also have a 30 day window of direct return abort capabilities. fuel is no problem would be the short answer.

B) food and water for 200 days isnt tough. like at all.... especially if we can pull water from the martian surface. give me a couple hours ill tell you how much is needed for a 180 day mission. my senior design project is a manned mission to a NEO with a maximum mission durration of 180 days. so one of my group members has that calculated somewhere.

C) we land objects on mars quite often. yes its dangerous. but nothing in space travel isnt. the main issue being deploying a chute at supersonic speeds. though we know how to design for this. and we have done it. we can land stuff on the planet. it would just be done in pieces.

D) send the food and water ahead of time on an un manned mission. problem solved.

E) as i said earlier there is a 30 day free return window.

current estimates are based on funding available. if we have the proper funding it can be done in less.

I graduate in 1 month with a BS in Aerospace engineering. my focus is in in space propulsion but i also take graduate level courses in statisitcal orbit determination. my senior design project as also been accepted into a NASA design competition in june. Ive also worked internships with NASA.....designing rockets for them. im well aware of their capabilites. not to mention this would more than likley be an international effort.

any questions? this is all top of my head stuff. if you want more accurate numbers i can get them no problem.

Thats 200 days just to get there.. They than have to wait another year at least before they can even plan on going back.. 30 day window out of a journey that is going to be over 2 years? Thats not a good return window.

Are you kidding me? Astronauts go through brutal training and anyone with a passion for what they are doing would kill to be the first man on Mars. Trust me, they will know what they would be getting into and would be prepared for brutal living conditions. Both physically and mentally

For a long time, just Mars.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

Exactly. We need to focus on colonising the Moon as a first step into space exploration. Interest in space exploration right now isn't too high among the majority. If we take the easier step to colonise the moon we would grasp the peoples attention. People would want to begin a venture to Mars seeing with what we are doing with the moon. This would really help funding.

PunishedOne

This just isn't gonna work, the moon has low gravity.. Your going to see adverse health effects on people that intend to stay there for a long time.

Ok, feel free to call me out on this, but this is solved via sci-fi: Rotating stations. (Science fiction generally becomes science)

The colony doesn't have to be ON the Moon, it could be orbitting it with a rotating cylinder that provides artifical gravity. The centrifugal forces generated by the rotation are enough to give a feel of gravity. See here in this fan-made model of the Babylon 5 station:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd4VHNQZpiw

Oh yeah, this is what I was trying to think of.

Planet troll known as Mars.