Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Mars be a One-way Trip?

Posted by samzenpus on from the please-send-paris-hilton dept.

alexj33 writes "Will humans ever really go to Mars? Let's face it, the obstacles are quite daunting. Not only are there numerous, difficult, technical issues to overcome, but the political will and perseverance of any one nation to undertake such an arduous task is huge. However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite possible, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane's proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person."

3 of 724 comments (clear)

  1. Lindbergh by fm6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Charles Lindbergh is supposed be the inspiration for this, but the guy knows jack about him. Lindbergh didn't set out to do a risky stunt. He was contending for the Orteig prize for the first aircraft to fly New York/Paris (either way) non-stop. Several previous attempts had ended tragically, and Lindbergh was convinced they failed because previous designers had not paid enough attention to various safety margins, especially those relating to weight and fuel. Thus he designed a plane that put fuel tanks in every conceivable space (including the place where any other aircraft would have had a windshield!) and did everything he could think of to minimize weight.

    That's why he flew alone: it's not that hard to stay awake for 36 hours, and so he saw a co-pilot as unnecessary extra weight.

    Ironically, he got lucky and didn't drift off course as much as he assumed he would, arriving at Paris with enough leftover fuel to continue to Rome. But he designed his plane on the assumption that he would not be lucky. He was a safety-first guy, that's why he succeeded where others failed. It ridiculous to associate him with this insane proposal.

  2. Werner von Braun's plan by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Werner von Braun's plan for going to Mars was published in the 1950s. It's worth reviewing it.

    1. Build a two-stage rocket that can lift reasonable loads to Earth orbit. The first stage, the big booster, is recoverable with parachutes. The second stage can re-enter on wings.
    2. Build a large number of these rockets, hundreds of them. This is the big difference from NASA's current one-off thinking.
    3. Build a big wheel-type space station in Earth orbit, using several hundred launches of the big boosters. This is the base for the Mars shot.
    4. Use about 400 launches (!) to move the Mars fleet of 14 rockets into Earth orbit, along with the necessary fuel.
    5. 14 rockets take off for Mars, with about a hundred people.
    6. The rockets land on Mars on wings. (This wouldn't work. Von Braun didn't have data on Mars' atmosphere. Back then, it was thought that Mars had maybe 20% of Earth's atmospheric pressure. The actual number is about 0.6%. This is a serious problem. We do not, in fact, know how to land a big load on Mars. The combination of heat shield and parachute used for small robotic craft isn't enough. Power is required, which means lugging fuel for landing.)
    7. A sizable base is built, exploration takes place.
    8. Some of the rockets return to Earth, to dock at the Earth space station.

    Ah, the good old days of industrial production. If China does a Mars program, it might look like that.

  3. Re:I mean... by tenco · · Score: 5, Informative

    It doesn't even qualify for being a planet based on the new rules (keeping its orbit clear of other stellar objects) -- Phobos and Deimos are evidence for that. FUD. Phobos and Deimos are moons aka satellites of Mars. And satellites have been cleared