Manned Mars Mission Some Way Off

10,9,8,7... Count Down Aborted writes "The BBC brings some perspective to the manned mission to Mars debate recently reinvigorated by the discovery of vast H2O ice reserves on Mars. Basically, they list many of the reasons (e.g. psychological, political, monetary, and technological) why we must proceed very carefully and slowly despite the significance of such a mission if it were successful. They also raised the interesting question, "Who should be the members of such a crew if it were to be launched?"" Update: 05/28 14:28 GMT by H : Another good link is on USA Today.

Comments

Oh please

[p3d0]

They said the same things about the moon mission.

I particularly like this one:

If the crew is relying on technology to manufacture its rocket fuel to get home from the hydrogen and oxygen locked up in the Martian ice then it had better work - first time.

Yeah, it's a shame we have no ice here on Earth with which to test this system. Anyway, the rocket booster that lifted Armstrong and Aldrin off the moon had to "work the first time", and they still signed up.

History is full of shortsighted people telling us what scientists can't possibly do, sometimes only months before they do it.

Why come back?

[HeyBob!]

Most of the cost of sending people to Mars is the cost of getting them back again. The trip should be one way, with new people and supplies sent every few months. Eventually, after 10 - 20 years, there may be enough manufacturing capacity on Mars to send people back to Earth, but that wouldn't be guaranteed. I'm sure out the 5 Billion people on Earth we could find a few thousand settlers. Most of the people who settled the "New World" (Europians coming to North America) came on a one way trip.
Maybe the volunteers remaining families would receive money (a pittance compared to the savings). There might be enough demand to go, you could run a lottery, with the winners going and the money raised for paying part of the trip.