Would You Take a One-Way Trip to Mars?

[Borg]

This article made me wonder - how many people would go to Mars if it was a one-way trip?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101019171709.htm"

 

[Insanity]

provided my spouse was also willing, I think it would be grand.

 

[JaredJames]

One-Way Martian Colonization Missions: Proposal Would Cut Costs Dramatically, Ensure Long-Term Commitment

Ha, I nearly choked on my doughnut when I read that!

Bit of a given really.

On the subject, can't say I would. The thought of not seeing anyone again and basically losing all freedom wouldn't bode well for me. If I knew I'd be coming back (defying the point of one way) I'd be interested, but not coming back would be the equivalent of being in prison for the rest of your life.

 

[D H]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101019171709.htm"

That silly idea again? This has been floated many times over since 1962. Some of them:

John M. Cord & Leonard M. Seale (1962), “The One-Way Manned Space Mission,” Aerospace Engineering 94:102, pp 60-61

George W. Herbert (1996), “One-Way to Mars,” AAS-96-322, proceedings of the sixth Case for Mars Conference, American Astronomical Society, pp 235-244

James C. McLane III (2006), “‘Spirit of the Lone Eagle’: an audacious program for a manned Mars landing”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/669/1

Lawrence M. Krauss (2009), “A One-Way Ticket to Mars,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html?_r=1The kind of people who would volunteer for a one-way trip to Mars with only a handful or so people sent to Mars are exactly the kind of people who should not be sent on such a trip. It is a suicide mission. Group dynamics and ensuring a critical skill base means the minimum number of people needed for a one-way trip to Mars is on the order of a hundred or so. But now we aren't talking about doing things on the cheap anymore.

 

[Upisoft]

No way. I stay here. Maybe if Mars comes to me I'll consider it again..

 

[Mu naught]

That silly idea again? This has been floated many times over since 1962. Some of them:

John M. Cord & Leonard M. Seale (1962), “The One-Way Manned Space Mission,” Aerospace Engineering 94:102, pp 60-61

George W. Herbert (1996), “One-Way to Mars,” AAS-96-322, proceedings of the sixth Case for Mars Conference, American Astronomical Society, pp 235-244

James C. McLane III (2006), “‘Spirit of the Lone Eagle’: an audacious program for a manned Mars landing”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/669/1

Lawrence M. Krauss (2009), “A One-Way Ticket to Mars,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html?_r=1The kind of people who would volunteer for a one-way trip to Mars with only a handful or so people sent to Mars are exactly the kind of people who should not be sent on such a trip. It is a suicide mission. Group dynamics and ensuring a critical skill base means the minimum number of people needed for a one-way trip to Mars is on the order of a hundred or so. But now we aren't talking about doing things on the cheap anymore.

What so you're saying only cowards can go to mars?

Since when did we fall into this mentality that exploration must incur zero risk? You wouldn't exist if the early European explorers hadn't the gall to go out and explore the world - even if they were motivated by greed.

If human kind is ever going to take the next step forward it has to come at some risk or it will never happen. I for one would do it, and most people would probably say they would but in the end back out.

 

[Insanity]

What so you're saying only cowards can go to mars?

Since when did we fall into this mentality that exploration must incur zero risk? You wouldn't exist if the early European explorers hadn't the gall to go out and explore the world - even if they were motivated by greed.

If human kind is ever going to take the next step forward it has to come at some risk or it will never happen. I for one would do it, and most people would probably say they would but in the end back out.

agreed

 

[DaveC426913]

What so you're saying only cowards can go to mars?

Since when did we fall into this mentality that exploration must incur zero risk? You wouldn't exist if the early European explorers hadn't the gall to go out and explore the world - even if they were motivated by greed.

If human kind is ever going to take the next step forward it has to come at some risk or it will never happen. I for one would do it, and most people would probably say they would but in the end back out.

He's saying there's a broad gulf between heroism and suicide.

Or:

You can't jump across a canyon in two leaps.

If you were given a bunch of scuba tanks and dropped down the Marianas Trench to start a farm, would you call it "a risk by a courageous person" or would you call it suicide?

 

[Mu naught]

He's saying there's a broad gulf between heroism and suicide.

Or:

You can't jump across a canyon in two leaps.

If you were given a bunch of scuba tanks and dropped down the Marianas Trench to start a farm, would you call it "a risk by a courageous person" or would you call it suicide?

It's suicide based on the assumption that its certain to fail.

I'm sorry, but why does the assumption that its possible to succeed make you foolish and naive, but the assumption that its impossible somehow makes you rational?

People probably thought the Apollo missions would fail and were impossible when they were proposed, but we ended up placing 12 American men on the moon.

Also I may add that it's very easy for those who are already old enough that a mission to Mars will not happen in their lifetime to say "we should wait". Those who are young enough to one day live to see such a thing come to fruition are a little bit more motivated the the old guys.

 

[JaredJames]

It's suicide based on the assumption that its certain to fail.

I'm sorry, but why does the assumption that its possible to succeed make you foolish and naive, but the assumption that its impossible somehow makes you rational?

People probably thought the Apollo missions would fail and were impossible when they were proposed, but we ended up placing 12 American men on the moon.

Also I may add that it's very easy for those who are already old enough that a mission to Mars will not happen in their lifetime to say "we should wait". Those who are young enough to one day live to see such a thing come to fruition are a little bit more motivated the the old guys.

Do you not understand the concept of "one way"?

They may achieve something, they may not. But it is fact that people don't do well in small groups in isolation. We turn on each other, with potentially horific consequences.

All issues you have to overcome.

A manned mission there and back is just an upscaled, more complicated moon mission, to put people there permanently is a different issue. You have to supply them with everything they need to survive (that's a lot even for only a few months).

 

[D H]

What so you're saying only cowards can go to mars?

Did I say anything even close to that? The answer is no.

Since when did we fall into this mentality that exploration must incur zero risk?

Once again, did I say anything even close to that? The answer once again is no. So do stop putting words in my mouth.There is a huge difference between sending people on a suicide mission versus sending people on a mission that entails a good amount of risk but also entails a reasonable chance that they will live to a reasonably ripe old age. Sending a small number of people to Mars is a suicide mission. Someone will go insane and wreak a lot of damage, particular so since the kind of people who would volunteer for a suicide mission are exactly the kind who have a much higher chance of going insane. This is exactly why Navy now has rather strict mental stability tests for crew assigned to submarines. Incidents have happened in the past, some of them rather serious.

Assuming for the sake of argument that that does not come to pass. Unless the Mars contingent has a sufficient skill base, people will still die prematurely because of broken bones, ectopic pregnancies, failing life support equipment, dying plants in the hydroponics garden, etc. There are lots of things that can go wrong on a lifelong mission with no return home. Even if nothing goes wrong as far as health and safety are concerned, suppose the communications system dies some day. Now what's the point of the mission? We sent a bunch of people on a suicide science mission and now the return on investment has suddenly and permanently dropped to zero unless someone there knows how to fix that equipment. The number of people that need to be sent to Mars on a permanent or indefinite basis is a lot more than the number needed for a short duration mission with a return to Earth at the end.

 

[JaredJames]

I was watching something once which was talking about generation space ships (breeding on board them and avoiding inbreeding), and I think it applies equally here. They were discussing the minimum number of people required to ensure inbreeding doesn't occur. I believe the number they discussed was 200 couples in order to maintain a non-inbred population over X amount of years (I can't remember the duration but it was a good few generations worth, in the case of Mars you'd hopefully be introducing more people every now and then to help with this). And that is simply to avoid genetic problems. When you factor in all the skill sets required, it goes up for each system introduced.

 

[Newai]

If I go, will the court reduce my speeding ticket?

 

[JaredJames]

If I go, will the court reduce my speeding ticket?

I'd say that given the nature of the trip, extradition to prosecute for failure to pay isn't very likely.

 

[turbo]

If I go, will the court reduce my speeding ticket?

Just pay the ticket! Are you going to take your dollars to Mars?

 

[Newai]

Just pay the ticket! Are you going to take your dollars to Mars?

I was going to Arby's. But I guess another night of rice will have to do.

Just what is a person supposed to get out of a one-way to Mars, anyway? Not exactly the kind of view that ups the value of real estate.

 

[turbo]

Just what is a person supposed to get out of a one-way to Mars, anyway? Not exactly the kind of view that ups the value of real estate.

You'll get high doses of radiation, unless the Sun stays incredibly quiet during the whole trip. Once outside of the Earth's magnetic field, Solar tantrums get really serious.

 

[elfboy]

will this invalidate my life insurance?

 

[brainstorm]

This could be an interesting experiment in social-power. How much would the people living on Mars have to beg to get Earth to come pick them up, despite the expense?

 

[Jack21222]

The volunteers for a suicide mission don't necessarily need to be insane. There are plenty of people near the end of their lives who wouldn't mind dying on Mars instead of Earth.

 

[Upisoft]

The volunteers for a suicide mission don't necessarily need to be insane. There are plenty of people near the end of their lives who wouldn't mind dying on Mars instead of Earth.

Why do you say suicide mission? The people can perfectly die from natural causes... say, vacuum exposure ..

 

[Gaius Baltar]

NASA - This is a one way trip...

If I had no family, and nobody to really care about, I think i'd be signing up to be honest...

Thoughts?

Space program looking for volunteers
Program aimed at settling other worlds
Astronauts would not be brought home
IT'S the biggest dead-end job ever.

NASA is looking for volunteers to fly to Mars - the snag is that you won't come back.

It is actively investigating the possibility of humans colonising worlds such as the Red Planet.

The settlers would be sent supplies from Earth but would go on the understanding that it would be too costly to bring them home.

NASA revealed that it had already received more than $1 million to commence work on the project at its Ames Research Centre in California.

Centre director Pete Worden, who claimed humans could be living on Mars by 2030 despite the inhospitable conditions, said: "The human space program is now aimed at settling other worlds.

"Twenty years ago you had to whisper that in dark bars or get fired."

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasa-mars-mission-a-one-way-trip/story-fn5fsgyc-1225945124330"

 

[Tom83B]

I think I would never have the guts to do it :-)

 

[D H]

Gaius Baltar, I moved your new thread into this existing recent thread on the same topic.

 

[Tanelorn]

I think this is a great idea. What is the purpose of existence except to have something to reach for? It may take a thousand years to build a large settlement which can sustain itself with recycling, local materials and solar energy, but it is worth it. Just read some Carl Sagan.

Plus we get a semi-permanent 100 year spaceship which will transport us anywhere within the solar system and which will be flexible allowing new propulsion and energy sources to be bolted on as they become available.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html



Growing up watching the space program in the UK watching Americans land on the moon was amazing. It showed the world that the USA were the leaders in high technology. Now it is time for the USA to once again inspire the world to greater things.

This could be in the form or a permanent spaceship operating within the inner planets of the solar system designed in such a way so as to allow adds on as new technologies become available. Eg. Propulsion, Power Supply source, living quarters, cargo etc

This ship would allow a staging post to be set up on Phobos which orbits Mars at a distance of 9000Km. At the right time the ship would eventually allow humans to take a one way trip to Mars and set up a permanent Martian colony.

Never mind the risk it is time for NASA and the USA to inspire humanity to greater things by colonizing and terraforming a new planet, journeying to the new frontier like the explorers of the new world.


Looks like someone liked the idea:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...n-astronauts-Mars-leave-forever.html?ITO=1490


Will the resident aliens on Mars be known as Martians and will they be elligible for green cards?

Hey Brainstorm, you think they could name their ship "The Silver Machine" :) and Uncle Sam really would be on Mars!

 

[Radrook]

With all the Martian real estate being sold already chances are you'd be trespassing soon as you land. : )

 

[Upisoft]

With all the Martian real estate being sold already chances are you'd be trespassing soon as you land. : )

Law enforcement troops are welcome...
The question is if they will accept one-way ticket.

 

[brainstorm]

Growing up watching the space program in the UK watching Americans land on the moon was amazing. It showed the world that the USA were the leaders in high technology. Now it is time for the USA to once again inspire the world to greater things.

This could be in the form or a permanent spaceship operating within the inner planets of the solar system designed in such a way so as to allow adds on as new technologies become available. Eg. Propulsion, Power Supply source, living quarters, cargo etc

This ship would allow a staging post to be set up on Phobos which orbits Mars at a distance of 9000Km. At the right time the ship would eventually allow humans to take a one way trip to Mars and set up a permanent Martian colony.

Never mind the risk it is time for NASA and the USA to inspire humanity to greater things by colonizing and terraforming a new planet, journeying to the new frontier like the explorers of the new world.

Hearing people who distance themselves from USA identity seek inspiration from the USA irritates me the way it irritated me when the pope was dying and some journalist went on about how special it was when a person so close to God was on the verge of meeting him. If you think it's so great the the USA takes initiative and inspires the world, why don't you rally for the UK to do so? I hate to generalize, but it seems to be a European habit to view one's own nation as small and weak and yet still claim it with full solidarity. When are people going to start either having faith in their nation's power or abandoning it for a more powerful one?

 

[joesmith]

The question should be 'How much information can a team of geologist,,
supply us with,in order to make living easier for the next team,,add addendum,Courage and Bravery has not yet been TOTALLY bred out of American,Europeans,China, Japan,,and other countries.
Joe in Texas
The answers about some-one going crazy,is an opinion..of one who wishes to think that way.

 

[brainstorm]

I was watching something once which was talking about generation space ships (breeding on board them and avoiding inbreeding), and I think it applies equally here. They were discussing the minimum number of people required to ensure inbreeding doesn't occur. I believe the number they discussed was 200 couples in order to maintain a non-inbred population over X amount of years (I can't remember the duration but it was a good few generations worth, in the case of Mars you'd hopefully be introducing more people every now and then to help with this). And that is simply to avoid genetic problems. When you factor in all the skill sets required, it goes up for each system introduced.

Why not just take a smaller number of people and use cloning for reproduction?

 

[JaredJames]

Why not just take a smaller number of people and use cloning for reproduction?

Not sure how far along we are with cloning and whether it is currently possible. I'm also not sure whether or not clones have genetic defects.

That aside, how big would the on board cloning facility have to be? What would you need in place to complete the procedure?

Instead of having 200 people capable of running the ship, reproducing and having children, you end up with the requirement to carry geneticists capable of the procedure and you'd need a whole section devoted to it.

I'm not sure what you'd save.

Regardless, I'd say genetic diversity is a good thing.

 

[Tanelorn]

Well Brainstorm I am actually living in the USA now and consider myself a citizen of the Global village - literally. I am a Welsh UK European Turkish Canadian citizen with a USA green card.. Nationalism sucks almost as bad as religion when it comes to bloodshed.

 

[brainstorm]

Well Brainstorm I am actually living in the USA now and consider myself a citizen of the Global village - literally. I am a Welsh UK European Turkish Canadian citizen with a USA green card.. Nationalism sucks almost as bad as religion when it comes to bloodshed.

Was this a response to another thread but you somehow posted it on this one? This thread is about Mars.

 

[Tanelorn]

Brainstorm you said:

Hearing people who distance themselves from USA identity seek inspiration from the USA irritates me the way it irritated me when the pope was dying and some journalist went on about how special it was when a person so close to God was on the verge of meeting him. If you think it's so great the the USA takes initiative and inspires the world, why don't you rally for the UK to do so? I hate to generalize, but it seems to be a European habit to view one's own nation as small and weak and yet still claim it with full solidarity. When are people going to start either having faith in their nation's power or abandoning it for a more powerful one?


So I replied saying I am not really big on Nationalism.. ie I am just glad when ever someone achieves something worthwhile which ever nation is responsible.
Actually I am not sure what your original message was about anyhow.

 

[brainstorm]

So I replied saying I am not really big on Nationalism.. ie I am just glad when ever someone achieves something worthwhile which ever nation is responsible.
Actually I am not sure what your original message was about anyhow.

Oh, I see. It was about the idea that the world looks to the US for leadership in innovation or some nationalistic BS like that. It's funny to me that you say you're not big on nationalism but in the next sentence you say "whichever nation is responsible," as if nations are the responsible entities for individual achievements. Either way, it would be a diversion from the thread topic to continue discussing this issue here so if you really want to get into a discussion about nationalism, you should start a new thread, imo.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Look at this measly forum, with a few score votes and despotically moderated discussion.

http://slashdot.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=2080&aid=-1

 

[Tanelorn]

Brainstorm said, "Oh, I see. It was about the idea that the world looks to the US for leadership in innovation or some nationalistic BS like that. It's funny to me that you say you're not big on nationalism but in the next sentence you say "whichever nation is responsible," as if nations are the responsible entities for individual achievements. Either way, it would be a diversion from the thread topic to continue discussing this issue here so if you really want to get into a discussion about nationalism, you should start a new thread, imo."I didn't suggest that the rest of the world looks to the US, nor do I wish to start a nationalist thread. I only meant that I personally have a lot of respect for the people that put men on the moon. I don't know where you are getting the rest from. ta ta..

 

[brainstorm]

I didn't suggest that the rest of the world looks to the US, nor do I wish to start a nationalist thread. I only meant that I personally have a lot of respect for the people that put men on the moon. I don't know where you are getting the rest from. ta ta..

Someone said that early on in the thread, as I recall, and that was the only reason I mentioned nationalism. Space exploration has be appropriated as a vehicle for promoting nationalist competition, from the so-called "space race," (although this was more of a competition between capitalist and communist economic paradigms) to recent renewed interest in the moon by multiple national governments. I think google was also named as a player, but as I recall that was the only non-governmental corporation. Ideally, space exploration would be pursued by global corporations with no dominant ethno/national identity, but the nationalists of the human race tend to re-code everything into some variant of national identity, whether it be "international," "multinational," "transnational," or just labeling everything that's not ethnically homogeneous "American." Maybe the final frontier in space exploration will be the deconstruction of nationalism in space and ultimately the universe generally. Of course, then people will probably start claiming that each nation has its own universe in "the multiverse" . . .

 

[dkotschessaa]

I think I can speak for my wife and I and say we'll definitely go, when we're about 85 or so... :)

-DaveKA

 

[Radrook]

Two fully equipped

Two physicians.
Two engineers able to fix equipment malfunctions.
Two geologists.

Food and oxygen and other supplies sent beforehand for two year survival and emergency situations.

To be honest, apart from satisfying curiosity, I really fail to see the urgency needed to go so far just to get to a hostile place like that. If the sun were threatening to expand soon, then OK. That definitely would be a motivator. The asteroid belt is far more enticing with it's mineral wealth. Without material motivators mankind tends to languish.


.

 

[JaredJames]

The asteroid belt is far more enticing with it's mineral wealth. Nearer as well.

The asteroid belt is nearer to us than Mars? Are you sure?

 

[brainstorm]

To be honest, apart from satisfying curiosity, I really fail to see the urgency needed to go so far just to get to a hostile place like that. If the sun were threatening to expand soon, then OK. That definitely would be a motivator. The asteroid belt is far more enticing with it's mineral wealth. Without material motivators mankind tends to languish.

Post-Marxian labor-alienated mankind, maybe. The point of Mars-settlement would be to execute the possibility from starting with as little imported resources as possible and cultivating a sustainable colony. It would be quite impressive if people could come up with a plan that uses minimum launch-payload from Earth to establish (semi)permanent viability on Mars. This could involve a basic plan for harnessing energy, establishing a foundry, fabricating and assembling an airtight structure, being able to grow enough biomass to provide sustenance to a crew, and ensuring that air and water resources remained sufficiently abundant and clean. Of course the colonists would need a bail-out plan to escape to Earth when/if problems would occur. It might take numerous tries to achieve a reliable system but once established, the system could be used as a platform for further attempts on other planets/moons. Energy is the big issue, imo, because sunlight fades as you get further away and Venus seems to be too hot to colonize.

 

[vanesch]

*I* for sure would never go. That said, I have some suggestions of people I would definitely suggest to be put on the trip

 

[Radrook]

1. Radiation danger during trip and on arrival
2. Thin atmosphere
3. Sandstorms
4. Low temperatures
5. No surface liquid water
6. Extremely long trip in crowded quarters.
7. Increased meteor strike risk.


Not an enticing experience!

 

[Phrak]

MEN WANTED: FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."

- SIR ERNEST SHACKLETON

Shackleton got his men.

 

[hamster143]

MEN WANTED: FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."

- SIR ERNEST SHACKLETON

Shackleton got his men.

Yep ... if Mars travel weren't so expensive that only big governments could afford it, we'd have a colony there already. One of the fifty billionaires would part with a quarter of his wealth to jump-start the project ... Finding volunteers is not a problem. Finding the willpower to make it happen is hard.

 

[hamster143]

You'll get high doses of radiation, unless the Sun stays incredibly quiet during the whole trip. Once outside of the Earth's magnetic field, Solar tantrums get really serious.

Have you heard of MARIE? The highest levels they saw in 6 months of operation were on the order of 2 rad/day, briefly for a day or two when the detector was hit by a solar proton event. And steady background levels were 20-30 mrad/day. You don't start seeing effects of radiation poisoning until 50 rad or so of whole-body exposure over a short period of time.

 

[Radrook]

The asteroid belt is nearer to us than Mars? Are you sure?

I caught the mistake almost right away and corrected it. Thanx for keeping me on my toes.
How far in the future do you see any attempt at exploiting the asteroid belt of its riches?

 

[Radrook]

Someone said that early on in the thread, as I recall, and that was the only reason I mentioned nationalism. Space exploration has be appropriated as a vehicle for promoting nationalist competition, from the so-called "space race," (although this was more of a competition between capitalist and communist economic paradigms) to recent renewed interest in the moon by multiple national governments. I think google was also named as a player, but as I recall that was the only non-governmental corporation. Ideally, space exploration would be pursued by global corporations with no dominant ethno/national identity, but the nationalists of the human race tend to re-code everything into some variant of national identity, whether it be "international," "multinational," "transnational," or just labeling everything that's not ethnically homogeneous "American." Maybe the final frontier in space exploration will be the deconstruction of nationalism in space and ultimately the universe generally. Of course, then people will probably start claiming that each nation has its own universe in "the multiverse" . . .

Just recently on the discovery channel they were hypothesizing about how to take out moon colonies without using explosives. Kinetic energy was the suggested method. Huge rods plummeting down at enormous speed would do the trick they said. Of course this had been suggested before as a means of hitting targets on earth. But hey! who says that space is sacred when it comes to good ole moronic nationalistic bickering?

 

[brainstorm]

Just recently on the discovery channel they were hypothesizing about how to take out moon colonies without using explosives. Kinetic energy was the suggested method. Huge rods plummeting down at enormous speed would do the trick they said. Of course this had been suggested before as a means of hitting targets on earth. But hey! who says that space is sacred when it comes to good ole moronic nationalistic bickering?

Maybe UN weapons inspectors will be among the regular visitors to space colonies.