Slashdot Mirror
First Mars-Goers Should Prepare For a One-Way Trip
Luminary Crush writes with this excerpt from PhysOrg about the permanance of leaving Earth for Mars, at least for early travelers: "The first astronauts sent to Mars should be prepared to spend the rest of their lives there, in the same way that European pioneers headed to America knowing they would not return home, says moonwalker Buzz Aldrin. '[the distance and difficulty is why you should] send people there permanently,' Aldrin said. 'If we are not willing to do that, then I don't think we should just go once and have the expense of doing that and then stop.'" On the other hand, maybe they'll catch a ride back with Carrie-Anne Moss.
Do we get to nominate people to go?
Would it be by lottery?
Perhaps, you buy your way?
Convict Volunteers?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Considering that a lot of slashdotters never leave their parents' basement, I say we have a huge pool of potential candidates.
Unfortunately, the lag would be too huge for them.
The world's only becoming greedier and more polluted on top of the ever-creeping 1984-ism. I'd love to be on Mars as long as I had a high-speed internet connection to supply me with a life's worth of entertainment on top of being able to watch the rest of the human scum kill each other and blow their earth mother to bits.
Oh, shit....but who would I play WOW with?
The American pioneers were preceded by explorers that not only did not intend to stay permanently, but (mostly) returned home safely to tell the tales. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any maps to guide the pioneers later.
The first explorers on Mars should use modular equipment that can be used to build up a permanent infrastructure for use by a later permanent outpost staff. Zubrin's approach makes use of modular hab units that can be connected to create a permanent outpost from individual (temporary) missions. That makes sense. Sending astronauts to Mars to stay permanently, without any experience of the efficacy of the technology, is inviting disaster. Jamestown over and over and over again.
I am pretty sure that even the Norse came, looked around a bit, and went home.
I know that the early Spanish explorers sure did.
That is the difference between explorers and settlers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
In his novel Red Mars Kim Stanley Robinson tells of Mars being colonized by the First Hundred, a wave sent out after the first manned expedition, who would have to remain there forever. There are some interesting asides into the fact that, to want to leave behind your loved ones and all you know for a barren rock, you're probably not what the government bureaucrats who vet you would consider psychologically stable.
Ok, if it were to be a one-way mission, and there wasn't even a major plan for long-term survivability when getting there, why not consider the possibility of offering a once-in-a-short-lifetime trip to people who have a terminal illness. Obviously it'd have to be something they could survive the trip out with. But what a better way to spend your last years/months alive?
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
"The first astronauts sent to Mars should be prepared to spend the rest of their long, luxurious, comfortable lives there, free from the risk of attack from unfriendly Indians and wild animals."
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Reminds me altogether too well of the old 70s scifi novel Birth of Fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_Fire. The way the government acted throughout the story was also quite visionary.
Yeah, I feed the trolls. Can't help myself. Sorry.
My vote is for staying permanently - with Carrie-Anne Moss. :-)
Then you use the Constellation/Orion/CEV stuff to get from Earth to the cycler, and LEM-like craft between the cycler and Mars.
The resources for the Mars base, including lots of emergency provisions and an escape vehicle or two (extra LEM-like craft to return from Mars surface to Mars orbit and dock with the cycler) can be sent to Mars in advance. It doesn't make sense to send people until the provisions etc. are in place.
For redundancy, you'd probably build and launch two cyclers.
The drawback of all this is that it takes longer to build and deploy than a one-shot Apollo-style mission, but it's worthwhile because it provides an infrastructure for maintaining a permanent base and rotating crews.
The crews would still be committing to spending quite a few years to a mission, but not the rest of their lives.
As they mention the damage from cosmic rays/radiation will probably shorten the travelers life considerably. Still, I'd go even if it takes a yer to get there and I get 2 full years of decent life there (and then 6 months till cancer takes me). I'm so there... There should be a poll connected to this article. :)
Going to mars?
* I'm game!
* No way!
* Send the Cowboy
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Since I was a kid, space travel has been the single most fascinating thing in the universe to me.
It has only been recently that I've come to realize that manned space flight is perhaps not the right direction. This was an extremely difficult decision for me to make, but I've made it.
The money spent on a a manned mars trip would be better invested in robotics research.
We need to get off this planet. Human beings do need to go to mars, but more robots need to go first, and will need to go with humans on their trips as well.
My (perhaps weak) analogy is that while it is possible for a human to swim the english channel unaided, it is wiser to use technology to allow the feat to be easier, safer and better in general.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Who is Buzz Aldrin?
Now before I speak I didn't RTFA....
But why can't the ship return home? I don't think it's an issue of weather or not someone can come home, but how long the trip will take.
Once you reach outer space and are going a certain speed, am I right when I say you don't have to continue propelling yourself through the air? Just glide out towards Mars until you arrive. Much like the moon landing, once you finish your business, can't you just lift off and go home? Sure there is more gravity on Mars so the amount of force to put you in space will require more fuel, but again though...It's the same concept right? It just travel time.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
No Democrats/Republicans, no stock market, no poverty, no orwellian wars on drugs.... Sounds like paradise
What a lot of rot. If we rely on chemical rockets, then yes, Mars will be a one-way trip.
On-orbit assembly of nuclear powered reusable spacecraft would completely change the game.
We need to stop thinking small and start asking, "How big can we build a Mars ship?" Heck, we know how to build a substantial space station in earth orbit.
Stick Men
Have you seen the maps that the settlers of the US western territories used? Not what you're probably thinking of when you make a mental image of "map", I assure you.
Most navigation of the West in the early days was done landmark-to-landmark. Between and around the known landmarks was just wide open empty spaces. A lot of settlement parties tried various promising shortcuts through places like the Great Salt Desert and Death Valley, which worked out well for some, less well for others.
When they first got to the new world, people were already living there. Imagine the surprise if that happens this time around.
The American Pioneers are not a similar example to the first explorers on Mars. The ships that brought the pioneers to America returned to Europe (to perhaps bring more people to the new world.) And many of the first colonists did travel back and forth to the old country as part of trade and political exchanges. The biggest difference was that the Pioneers knew survival was possible in America. There would be food and water (and air!), though they would have to build their own shelter and hunt or grow their food. Unless the future Mars pioneers have the same assurances the option of a return trip is needed.
In the early days of the U.S. space program, there was some talk of sending someone on a one-way trip to the moon, there to wait until larger rockets could deliver a vehicle able to make the return trip. One-way supply rockets would keep the poor guy alive while work progressed on the big boosters. It was a desperate plan to beat the USSR.
Aldrin, in his astronaut days, was not one of the proponents of that scheme.
"...in the same way that European pioneers headed to America knowing they would not return home."
Huh, well there were quite a few European pioneers who went to the Americas and went back to their home countries. Mostly the military and leadership positions, but still it wasn't universally a one way trip.
is that the majority of the first population WILL be women. And they will send a large number of 100s or thousands of fertilized zygotes or just eggs and sperms. The reason is for diversity IN CASE separated.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But HAB has been destroyed!!! What?? Who??? How??? When???
Hey, I'll go if I can spend 6 months alone on a spaceship with Carrie-Ann Moss!!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Just some bar room style conjecture. Pull up a beer and jump in.
We should have a functional space elevator in place here on Earth first, used regularly to haul heavy cargo into orbit.
An interplanetary vessel should be assembled in orbit from components manufactured on Earth. Once the ship is built, cargo to support the first expedition can be sent up, followed by consumables for the trip, followed by the explorers themselves.
If the whole space elevator thing works as we hope here on Earth, a similar system should be constructed on Mars to support long-term missions. Additionally we ought to have GPS and communications satellites in orbit around Mars before sending permanent colonists.
With space elevators in place on both ends, it becomes far less daunting to send the heavy cargo needed to build rugged and roomy shelters, greenhouses, etc.
Sending astronauts there for short term scientific visits is indeed a waste of time, money, and other resources. If the idea is to have a more permanent presence on the red planet at some point, we should be building out the infrastructure now that is needed to ensure the first colonists have what they need to succeed.
I remember hearing that proposed lunar bases would shield themselves from cosmic rays by burying the modules in a thick coating of lunar soil.
The same could be done with anything sent to mars.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
When we can swim there and back?
There's no reason for anyone to live on Mars. The only reason to visit Mars is because it's there. They need to plant a flag, take some pictures and then bug out, just like the moon, Mount Everest or the Mariana Trench.
Supporting a settlement on Mars would take continual resupply missions from earth costing hundreds of millions each. (There is no way that they locally could manufacturer all of the nutrition needs, drugs, advanced equipment spare parts, etc. they would need to maintain a colony.) This money would be better spent on other space missions, and the population on earth would quickly get bored of supporting a bunch of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs in an airless desert. It would undoubtedly be cheaper just to pay for one return trip for a Mars expedition.
What's more, life there would just suck. They would have to live below ground like rats in holes to try to shield themselves from deadly cosmic rays, occasionally darting into the sunlight before their max radiation doses were exceeded. They would never see a body of water, a natural plant, a cloud, or breath non-artificial air again. At any time whole groups of them could be killed by a single mistake with the life support systems. (Not to mention one of their team flipping out and intentionally pulling the plug.) Their resupply missions could get threatened by political turmoil on earth. It would be like a life sentence in prison, but much more lonely and powerless.
Highest regards for Buzz Aldrin, but that seems to me to be another classic case of pionieering gone wrong. Underestimate the terrain (Well, Houston, that surely LOOKED like ice from back home) Loose your crops get lost yourself and basta! Robinson Crusoe comes to mind. Read the classic and consider for a moment the hardships Rob had to endure without having to care about water, air and heating. (Or if you need something more visual, watch Tom Hanks in "Cast Away"). That should give you a pretty good perspective on how many things we take for granted in our daily lives and that we depend on for our (better than 50 % chance of ) survival (with a life expctancy of more than 45). Things that are produced, manufactured and maintained by hundreds of people. Ok, maybe no man eating savages on Mars (maybe not right away "Lord of the Flies" anyone?) Even with a monthly supply train, a bad tooth would kill you faster than a bullet, never mind taking the appendix out of your fellow astronaut. How many waves would Buzz be willing to sacrifice before establishing a viable foothold? There is absolutely no escape, when the next starbucks is one year away. That could be my limited perspective at the beginning of the century. On the other hand: Maybe they'll call it: "The Aldrin Barbecue".
Why on earth should this be a problem. Certainly there are people who would balk at leaving earth behind forever but I'm sure you could easily find enough people to fill space craft who this wouldn't worry in the slightest. This is also hardly news worthy, its completely obvious to anyone who's actually considered travelling to Mars and would certainly to reduce your number of willing volunteers below the number needed for a sucessfull mission.
I believe the problem Aldrin says is another one: Is the possibility of things gone wrong and the explorers will stay trapped on Mars, like one Mars film where one of crew stay for a year on planet because malfunction of return capsule. The first crew for Mars may need to assume this risk, and if possible having a "plan B" to long or permanent settling on Mars if something gome wrong when they try to return.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
That and explorers can move over any terrain without a penalty.
The question is, is it cheaper to organize a return trip, or is it cheaper to have them settle there permanently which means sending more equipment and making them pretty much self sufficient or supplying them with what they need including oxygen. These are your only 2 options (unless you're willing to abandon astronauts to die on Mars).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"Hey Skipper! How will we ever get home now?!"
"Ask the professor..!"
"Hey Professor, how will we ever get home now?!"
"Do you see any damned coconut shells here Gilligan?!!"
Whoever goes there first, don't forget to bring your towel.
"My ancestors came here on that first shipment. They had nothing! The Federation gave them no tools, no supplies, so they worked together. They worked hard! And made a community! There were children born here! They were settlers trying to build a new world on a new planet! Later, more Federation prisoners came. There were disagreements. The community began to break up. They fought and killed. All that they had achieved was being destroyed! And it was my great-great-grandfather who found a way to unite them. He gave them a religion! Brought them together in the love and fear of God! That is the line I stem from. That is what gives me the right to rule!"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The astronauts would have to become at least partially self-sufficient. Needed supplies / equipment could be dropped in advance and continuing needs could be supplied with occasional drops.
You mean like continuing drops of smaller packages of parts and supplies and fuel canisters that could be used to re-fit and slowly re-fuel their landing craft enough to be able to launch from Mars and make a return trip back home, likely to the ISS or some re-entry-capable capsule awaiting them in Earth orbit? (since the mars lander/return craft would be very unlikely to be capable of re-entry itself).
No Democrats/Republicans, no stock market, no poverty, no orwellian wars on drugs.... Sounds like paradise
after mars pot no one will want to come back down
It bothers me that Aldrin is still quoting the year and a half transit time. The year and a half assumes chemical rockets and ignores technology that's available now, like ion engines. We won't be ready to do this for 30 to 50 years (maybe). If technologies under development today, such as VASIMIR, prove themselves in the next few decades, that transit time could be under 4 months (prediction based on VASIMIR propulsion at 12MW).
I have no clever semi-political comments, just what I said; I'd go in a heartbeat.
And since I'm past 50, it would definitely be a one-way jaunt.
D.D. Harriman had it right..........
I am my own gestalt.
A while back it was questioned what to do with the the ISS? Why not put it on a trip to Mars? At least there would be a station already in orbit for those who want to go. It definitely would not be a quick trip for the ISS but it would get there and the possibilities could be endless.
enjoy it while you have it - for it may be gone soon.
Yes, as stupid as it sounds I actually put myself on there to go to Mars (one way trip) via Ebay auction. I was hoping that someone somewhere might see it as an exploratory mission but one that was important enough to try.
Looking back it was pretty much the most dumbfucked thing I could do (at least as a serious attempt to go is concerned). I never made it but I did get a response from someone (rightfully) calling me a loon. Bear in mind though, that I believe people SHOULD explore outer space, and that its not that life is so bad here on Earth, or to *escape* anything, so much as it is important for us to recognize that exploration (albeit in a maccabre kind of way) knowing that you won't be coming back is still valid.
Or maybe I just hit my head a little too hard that day (mentioned in earlier post today).
This is old.
Very old.
The problem is not just with the return vehicle it is medical dealing with bone loss and radiation.
A simple to and from trip will take at best 2 to 2 1/2 years. Not include much time on the planet.
Based on studies from past studies for long term stays in space, primarily from the Soviet Union, and guesses it is thought that people would loose around 50% of the bone density, in certain bones, in 2 years, which would probably result in a high probability of serious health problems once they hit the earth gravity well. The bones could just collapse under standard weight and it would take years for them to be in a condition to walk under their own strength. For comparison osteoporosis is defined as a 25% bone loss and has a 175% increased chance of a bone fracture and a 325% increase for a hip fracture.
Mars welcomes their new American overlords.
I'm a satanic clam.
Obviously, it can be done. It's "just" a matter of economics. The problem is getting enough fuel down to Mars such that you can get back up again. Add to that, the necessity of keeping the whole crew alive for 4 years (2 out, and two back) plus however long they have to stay on the surface.
You'd need a really massive spacecraft to accomplish all that. On the other hand, a one-way trip would have to carry a lot less fuel, hence a much smaller landing craft, hence much less fuel again...
Playing my MMO's via email just would not be the same. Trying to lead a guy 2 days with a sniper rifle. I just can't see it.
Just as long as I get to ride... back with Carrie-Anne Moss.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
How about sending people on death row there?
And if you go we will live out the rest of your life there.
I don't think they have lunar soil on mars.
What's it to be? Glory or obscurity?
No sig today...
First of all, I would want decent access to "the internet". Not sure how to do that, but one could imagine a somewhat intelligent web crawler spidering through pages that I've nominated as interesting and just sending that in big chunks.
I'd want access to movies - again, they'd need to be sent, so that's a tricky one like the one above.
Would be nice to have book. Lots and lots of books. OCR a few thousand+, ship it with me. Could do the same with movies and music I suppose.
One thing I don't think I'd want to be without would be Mechano/LEGO or something similar in large quantaties. Electric motors that would work with this and lots of solar panels.
Since this is a trip to Mars, every single piece of Mechano/LEGO going with me will be cataloged. This should be put on the internet on some kind of Wiki like website. Give others the chance to play around with what I have access to, build cool contraptions etc. Even stuff that'd come in handy for new mission style things.
LOTS of spares for everything that is brought. Not one computer, send 10 or 20 along.
Mars is aparently rich on methane, so something to use extract that with (oxygen as well). That way you could have external heating, gas powered vehicles etc.
I suspect the biggest problem (outside catastrophic problems, like immediate medical problems, base blowing up etc) would be cabin fever. Entertainment, books, movies, music, would probably aliviate that to a great extent.
Oh, and something to commit suicide with. Not a gun or anything like that. Give me ... 50 suicide pills. They should be painless, not work inside the first hour. And I'd want 49 antidotes. Might not need a single one, but ... just in case. Would be a shame to realise that you didn't bring any ;)
I've always thought that the best way to go to Mars was tofirst spend many missions sends "infrastructure". That is redundant living space, redudant surface transportationand labortory equipment and food and fuel and so on. Only after this is in place send people.
The reason is once you are there.. Then going home means launched a Mars the earth rocket. Going from mars the Earth is just as complex as Earth to Mars except you are using vehicles that have been in space for a long time and you lack all the support people and all the spare parts that would be on Earth. So even if you did intend to bring them home you would need a "plan B" for if the return rocket had a problem and the return launch could not go. They would have to wait on mars, for at least 18 months and likey 2.5 years. So you may as well plan the mission a a POSSABLE one way trip.
Bottom line is you have to have the one-way idea at least as a backup plan no mater what.
Ok, the trip was to Titan, one of Saturn's moons, but it was pretty much the same idea nonetheless. I recommend reading "Titan" by Stephen Baxter, which describes in vivid details the preparation for such a long trip and the necessity for the crew to take a one way ticket.
This is the third time (at minimum) this has been suggested that I remember on /. , each time people are aghast.
I think there would be no shortage of qualified volunteer from the scientific community who would go. The chance to analyze Mars up close and in person would be very tempting for many. Maybe send husband&wife teams to help handle the separation from humanity.
This would be for volunteers and just because it messes with your tender sensibilities is no reason not to do it. I say man up and damn the torpedoes.
That is, if we ever have the money for this kind of effort again. The economy is in shambles and I can't see this kind of grand project happening until that changes.
Exactly. Nuclear warheads for ICBM's are designed to be shot into space on a sub-orbital path, and come back down to near ground level with no damage (until they go off, of course). Granted that they're not designed to survive impact, but that's just a little more engineering.
Here's some info on Cassini's RTG generators, which is about as close a comparison as you're likely to see:
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Space,History,RTG_Safety
That's the first thing you do in Outpost if you're smart; start tunnelling.
There are only two ways to do it. Either you do an Apollo style trip where you send some guy there to plant a flag then go home the next day, mostly for "show" and then you don't go back for 50 years, if ever. Or you commit to continuous missions launched ever 2.5 years that continue "forever". Maybe we might do the Apollo type thing just to show off but if you desife to do the continous thing then yes sending supplies every 2.5 years is cheaper then sending a crew every 2.5 years.
What you save is never having to send the "Mars to Earth launch complex" to Mars.
They are more willing to bet they wont last on the planet for very long. Life expectancy is higher now days on earth. It wont be the same on mars. So how much stuff were they willing to send with them in case they do last for like um 20-25 years? That's a lot of rations. You have to pity them also. Unless they send doctors, with plenty of medical supplies, chances are they will eventually start to die one by one. From common ailments that are well taken care of on earth. Plus who knows what that type of life would do to a persons mental health. You have to feel sorry for anyone that volunteers.
The Martian atmosphere is too thin to brake a large heavy (manned) lander. So most of the energy to slow it down must come from retro rockets. Just one more problem.
Perhaps it would be best to send families. People going alone would go nucking futs...assuming they aren't already.
Oh don't worry. It'll be a one-way trip.
And for all those people saying how they'd like to go there please try spending a year in one of Antarctica's dry valleys while wearing a space suit and living in a tiny craft with minimal supplies or repair abilities. You'd still have more interesting and friendly scenery than you'd have on Mars.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Sure going to mars is going to be a high risk proposition anyway, but not having at least the redundancy of a return capable vehicle for the first trip isn't a bright idea. Having a one way trip would be exponentially more massive an undertaking than going and returning, unless it's a suicide mission. You'll need to rely on scheduled supply runs, with massive redundancy built into them. (What's the current success rate of probes successfully reaching Mars, 60%?) A permanent colonization would require way more people than a quick visit. What happens when you have some catastrophe that shuts down the program for a few years while they re-design? What happens if your colony ship is en-route and the equipment sent earlier gets destroyed? What happens if something unforeseen makes staying there impossible without re-designing something? What if someone goes crazy?
Perhaps we could make Mars a new Australia - prisons are overcrowding and being sent down for 'life' could take on a whole new meaning! ;)
As long as stealing a loaf of bread isn't the only prerequisite this time round though
Yes, I know Australia is no longer a penal colony, but it did start that way when it seemed as far away from England as Mars does from Earth in this day and age...
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Europeans returned from America. Columbus himself went four times.
I still don't see the appeal of Mars. First of all, there is essentially no atmosphere -- you'd have to steal a lot of air from Earth, and make your own container for it (eg. a dome), which would require a lot of work and a lot of materials. Even if you can get all of that, and transport it (along with food and water), then you have to deal with its seasons -- a Martian winter is brutal, and may not even provide enough sunlight for sustaining plant life (which you need for food). There is also the issue of energy, especially for heating and lighting in said winter; you would probably need to build your own nuclear power plant, and carry enough radioactive material to last until a new shipment of supplies can arrive. Mars is a lot farther away than people might think.
Listening to it now on audio book. Amazing how it plays out. Sending criminals into space did not work in the book
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
If we can build a large ship in orbit, why not use it to run a sort of shuttle path to Mars? This ship would never break orbit, and be a true Star Trek-style ship. Better yet, build Two of these things, and make them huge. Star Trek TOS Enterprise size...Build the first, use orbital lifts to supply it. First trip will be an infrastructure trip. Bring along a skeleton crew to man the place, as well as a vehicle capable of shuttling to Mars orbit and back for them. Would rendezvous with the Interplanetary Shuttle. While the first ship is on its way to Mars, build your second ship. Load it with Oxy tanks and fuel and whatever supplies they need. Send it on its 17 month voyage as the first is leaving on its way back. (8 there plus 1/2 there plus 8 back) After 5 or 6 of these trips we have solved all of our problems. Need to get back home? take the interplanetary shuttle. Want to get to mars? Take the interplanetary shuttle. we need shit shipped from one place to the other? Take the Shuttle!!
Mod me troll, for the unwelcome history lesson that tends to shame-face the European "founders"/settlers of the Americas...
But, there are many convincing clues about how Columbus was able to get the money to sail here. There was already evidence that China's/India's/et al Silk Road posed a threat to European power. For whatever reasons, Columbus wanted/needed to get to the new land, whether for fame, or alleviation of personal debt... But...
AFTER he and his thieving brother both lied to the Vatican to obtain said funding, and said funding was granted mainly/only because likely the Vatican or Columbus or both understood the implications of getting to the Americas in volume before China, since the maps Columbus was counterfeiting/duplicating/modifying and passing off as HIS works really were of Chinese origin.
But, since China (back then, as far as seafaring went) was not out CONQUERING whole lands far from home, and not out threatening civilizations with "convert to OUR religion, or DIE and got to HELL by the WILL of God, by the HAND of HUMANS who've never MET God...".
But, China WAS operating a tribute system, and verbally told others they and all the land under them were subject to the Great Ruler/King of China, center of the world.... etc, but China never ENFORCED the claims, unlike.....
But, another point is, China invented a lot of scientific and navigational and medical things that aided in vastly superior navigation (in the NORTH and SOUTH hemispheres) to within 50 miles of indented, whereas Spain and Portugal could only demonstrate some 1500 or so miles of accuracy; China figured out how to save lives of sailors from the ravages of scurvy whereas Columbus and followers suffered many numbers of deaths along the way....)
But, you can bet the Vatican and European powers with fleets had no one-way-trip intentions. It was a power race, or race about power...domination, subsumation...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Ask Akhillius.
Who?
Mod me troll, for the unwelcome history lesson...
You're not a troll, you're offtopic.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
He actually has a very interesting point.
Send TESTUBE BABIES!
...if they are powerful enough to make for a smooth landing and touchdown, will also be powerful enough for a liftoff and a return trajectory back to Earth's orbit. If they have enough fuel. Carrying enough fuel to do both a landing and a takeoff and return trip is the problem.
If unmanned supply ships could send a bunch of refueling containers to the landing site in several trips ahead of the manned mission, then the manned mission would only have to be able to carry enough fuel to complete getting there and landing. They could refuel on the surface for the return trip home.
There's only one problem with this whole idea. Initial historical voyages of
exploration were generally not one way trips. I am not even sure that this
would have been the case for the polynesians that crossed the pacific in
canoes. There was always the expectation of returning home after your voyage.
You only didn't make it back unless the voyage failed and you ended up in
davey jone's locker or in someone's stock pot.
The first trip around the horn was not a one way colonizing expedition.
So expecting the first shot out to be a one way trip based on "history"
is a bit silly.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Buzz knew the odds were high of Apollo 11 being the end of his life. Someone traveling 400m km away from the nearest breathable atmosphere understands that completely. A Mars mission that budgets mass for a return capability gives up many years worth of resources. The immense expenditure of traveling to Mars make it insane just to spend a few days or weeks on the planet. The astronauts must be prepared to stay for a period that is well past their life expectancy given the many risks, even if theoretically they have can return.
The ultimate billionaire stunt: get a Soyuz TM, load a 1 year supply of ramen noodles and beer, use a satellite booster to shoot it trans-Mars and back. Live deep space podcasts!
http://3.paulhamill.com
Provided a good power supply (nuclear) it is possible to extract oxygen from the Martian atmosphere or simply recycle the CO2. It is possible to grow plants in Martian soil etc.
In fact, given a sufficient investment, there is no reason a Martian colony could not be fully self-sufficient.
Yep, i realized that only AFTER i hit "submit"..., but i did try to weasel in on the angle of settlers coming to the US, money (wasted or obtained), and one-way trips... I figure it'll be emotional or political reasons my post'll get shot down in flames... CHEERS!
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
If that joke was actually said, it was very funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Family_(album)
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
6 billion ppl on this Planet. ~3 Billion are Female. A number of them are intelligent. And you seem to think that you can not get any women who will want to go to mars, even though MANY braved being in foreign lands regularly? My guess is that the VERY crew will consist of 3-4 couples. As in MEN AND WOMEN. The kind of men that would like to live away from others in society is exactly what you do NOT want to send on these missions. You want ppl that can get along with others, AND like it. BTW, the first group will be construction, not explorers. They will be there to build a pad and living facilities. There will be a scientist amongts them, but nearly all will be ENGINEERS. They will almost certainly be going there with better than 50-50 chance of survival.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You've been reading Menzies haven't you? A good book, and fulfilled it's aims (to introduce the idea that China discovering the Americas), but a lot more research needs to be done to prove it's claims.
just an analog boy living in a digital age.
Every time space travel appears on Slashdot...I get another opportunity to remind you'all that your country is broke. Which means that there isn't going to be a grand 21st century manned space program to other planets.
You can't lose a three trillion dollar war, buy-out the bunko mortgage of every half-wit burger flipper who scammed a half-million 'loan' for a McMansion, give 700 billion dollars to Wall Street sleezos and have a grand glorious space program on other people's money. Not anymore. No matter how many times that you remind them that you have 10000 hydrogen bombs.
You're broke. Your so-called government has spent already spent every tax dollar that you and your children and your grandchildren are ever going to have taken out of their paycheck.
And you got nothing out of it. You can't even get your teeth fixed. Do you have dental insurance? Every one else in the civilized world does. You don't.
There is no future manned space program. It's a fantasy.
Once again, I must remind you of this fact.
Thank you for your attention,
The rest of the world
P.S. you can go back to your comic book movies now.
The reason it would be a one way trip is that there is minimal atmosphere to protect from solar radiation. That plus the radiation during the trip means that any crew would die from cancer within a few years even if they returned to earth so why bother bringing them back? Volunteers would have a shortened lifespan but make it to the history books.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
nice Total Recall ref!
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
> [sarcasm]Perhaps future Mars colonists will be republicans escaping the Obama administration.[/sarcasm]
Actually, the Republicans plan to slink across the border to Mexico and start an 'English only' program, while looking for an area to settle where there are underpaid police who are sufficiently 'subject to market forces'.
Boy umm, I mean, BY George, you ARE correct, hehehe....
I certainly HOPE Gavin is on to something. I suspect he is, considering that the US/UK/AU contrived ban on Menzies/et al poking around off Australia to find out the particulars of a wreck off shore. It might be Chinese with tons of proof, or tons of more embarrassing/condemning questions the non-Asians will squirm trying to cope with.
Even before finishing reading 1421 i was able to see why various Western nations would not like to see Menzie's & team's work take hold, upsetting the things we've been so long taught as truth. Scurvy cure. Astronomical observatories. Water-tray clocks. Shooting the stars. Devising a Southern Hemisphere triangulation method for navigation. See-through porcelain. Too bad today's China is rife with corruption. I'd personally like to see China clean up its act on human rights, tainted labor and food products... and then rear up like a sleeping giant dragon no one can push down. But, that's another story in other published books...
But, I haven't bought his 2nd book. Skimmed it at Borders, and may revisit the book again.
Oh...
"Analog Boy in a Digital World"... ok, i better not go there, hehehehehe... Kewl tag, tho!
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Free -- free
a trip to Mars
for 900
empty jars
Burma-Shave
One respondent, Arlyss French, who was the owner of a Red Owl grocery store, did submit 900 empty jars; the company replied: "If a trip to Mars you earn, remember, friend, there's no return." After he collected 900 more jars for the return trip, the company, on the recommendation of Red Owl's publicity team, sent him on vacation to the town of Moers (often pronounced "Mars" by foreigners) near Duisburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
I lol'd at this Civ' Reference.
The first astronauts sent to Mars should be prepared to spend the rest of their lives there
Sort of like an old folks home.
I am anarch of all I survey.
...we'd all say "Yeah, right."
But...has Buzz ever in his life been wrong about anything?
It could be self sufficient in terms of basic supplies: oxygen, water, food, energy, possibly basic raw materials such as steel.
OTOH, if the microchips for the systems running life-support, communications, etc fail, you aren't going to be able to build new microchips on Mars. Ditto for complex medicines if the settlers start falling ill due to the hostile environment (low gravity, cosmic rays, possible lack of nutrients in Martian-grown food, etc).
IMHO, on of the biggest benefits of long-term manned space missions would be the spin-offs regarding resource efficiency. If shipping is going to cost you millions of dollars per kilo, you are going to learn how to conserve and/or recycle as much as possible.
I've actually wondered, since all of the, "get payloads into orbit," and, "get payloads shot into space," development has already been done, how hard would it be to actually develop a mission, even in the private sector, to make the journey back and forth? You'd have to carry enough fuel to launch from the surface of Mars, but as Martian gravity is a little more than Earth's, that should be less fuel intensive than launching from Earth anyway. You'd have to carry supplies for keeping the astronauts alive for two or three years depending on how long it takes and how long you stay, but both the Americans and the Russians have experience with space stations that might help make planning that part of the mission easier, and as we've already landed on the Moon and have returned to Lunar orbit to then proceed to leave orbit to return to Earth we already know how to go from orbit to flight.
As I (admittedly not an expert) see it, a voyaging craft would have to be constructed, probably from pieces in orbit, similar to a space station but potentially with a power plant designed for not exclusively solar use, and much heavier on the supplies storage and crew sanity than the current ISS. Tethered or bolted to this craft would be a landing module with quarters for at least a single extended Mars mission, if not something designed to possibly be visited multiple times over the course of many missions. It could even be comprised of both hard pieces and of soft, inflated modules, so that the hard parts are always there for future missions, and that soft, inflatable modules are brought fresh for expanded crew amenities for the duration of each mission, to be used only until the mission concludes. Also, probably bolted in, would have to be a return-to-space craft to launch from the ground up to the still-orbiting voyaging craft, only for the purposes of returning the landing crew back to orbit. Future missions could use the same voyaging craft and the same ground-based facility, with a new return to orbit craft sent each time, or else the one from the first mission refurbished. It'd probably be cheaper to just build another one rather than to try to build one solidly enough to survive multiple uses, kind of like how the Russians have a Soyuz that is only good for one trip. In fact, a Soyuz or an Apollo-type vehicle might be a good vehicle to use to get from Earth to the orbiting voyaging craft.
One stumbling block that I see, though, would be law and order on such a long mission, as well as human nature like sexuality. We're immature enough as a country that there'd be those who'd vocally oppose mandatory birth control or vasectomes, and unfortunately the government would probably listen to them.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It amuses me that warriors can pick up two forest/jungle upgrades from fighting wolves and bears and things, which then lets them move faster through forest than over plains.
I mean, what are they doing, brachiating?
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
Of course it has to be a one way trip. Going to Mars and back requires too much energy (fuel).
I remember doing this in physics lessons a long time ago. If you add up the energy to:
1) Leave Earth
2) Land on Mars (thin atmosphere, so quite expensive)
3) Take off from Mars and head back
It's simply too much fuel.
In fact, it was addressed pretty well at Universe Today back in March. They focused on a proposal called "Spirit of the Lone Eagle" by NASA engineer Jim McLane. I could say more but I'll leave it at RTFA.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Before planning on colonizing Mars, they should first build an orbital station in lunar orbit, and first set out on building a permanent lunar base. With regular cargo shipments of fuel, parts, construction supplies, etc, would a Mars colonial expedition become feasible.
Hell, if you commercialize it early on, the expense would be reduced (Rei/Max would pay a ton just to have a photo of a "For Sale" sign on the surface of Mars), perhaps even halved if enough companies sign on.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
No, no, no. You're getting it wrong. The outlaws get shipped to the moon!
Cobber.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Sure it will.
It just won't be launched by the USA.
And that's the point of my plan. Offer to "bury" people by having their bodies shipped to Mars. The bodies can launch on low-fuel, high-g rockets and get there by equally low-fuel slow trajectories. Let's say delivery to Mars orbit within five or six years, depending on launch time. Then, when they get there, the bodies get dropped into a row on top of which lots of microorganisms are dropped and used to kickstart a soil supply. One that we then *know* will have the right balances of nutrients, have a decent amount of water, and a wide range of microorganisms. Add fifty or sixty pounds per body of biodegradable packing material (i.e. a coffin that will become part of the resulting biomass) and you'll really be in great shape. Include a translucent outer case with some insulating properties and you don't even need much of a greenhouse waiting at your destination. A job for Aerojel, seems to me.
Betcha it would work, too. Get the cost down to two or three million dollars each and you'll have to barricade the doors to keep rich, elderly techies from signing up too fast. I figure, what, a hundred million in development costs. About the same as the Indian moon mission. If costs can be brought down to two million per corpus and the charge kept at, say, three million, it shouldn't take more than fifteen years or so at worst to be in the black and, by the way, have developed a kickass set of launch expertise, facilities, and rights to tens of thousands of pounds of rich biomatter, all already delivered to Mars. If necessary, it could even be initially delivered to a Martian parking orbit to wait in deep freeze for an optimal location to be chosen.
Just think of the variations. Pet burial. The same technique delivered to a greenhouse on the Moon. And so on.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
By Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-94).
Help stamp out iliturcy.
How about we send folks with terminal illnesses, old age, or other reasons that returning isn't needed and being supplied won't last long? /me raises hand.
You can say "should be prepared to spend the rest of their lives there", and get hero types willing to die for the cause. Noble, but fatalistic.
You can say "and don't have to come back", and get cranky, hard to work with, independent pioneers who are willing to live for the cause. A pain in the ass, but realistic.
Develop self-replicating environmental mechanisms that will make it possible for people to stay and there will be more volunteers than can possibly be carried there by all the proposed lifters.
"Please tell me Mr. Sagan, are we ever going to get out of this planet alive?" -- Planet Earth Rock & Roll Orchestra
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
If we could loose EVERYONE who voted to stop federal regulation on Fanny and Freddie and who voted for this bailout;
You might have something on the bailout but it was the REGULATION that was the problem, for it's what allowed (mandated) that the two FM play fast and loose with who should be able to receive mortages. That on top of MANY government officials receiving large donations from the FM's they were supposedly "overseeing". It's what allowed the DM's to grow to such enormity that "Failure was not an option", dregulation was trying to UNHOOK that train before it reached the station it ended up in.
It's hard to see past a fist full on money.
If you vote in people aiming to add MORE regulation and "green oversight" then I hope you really enjoyed the FM debacle, 'cause you aint seen nothing yet!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's foolhardy to waste money on robots when a human can do so much more.
Send up one guy with an estimated life span of 100 days once he reaches there, and even in a single day he could do more than all the rovers combined ever did or will do for decades.
Why hold ourselves back when there are people willing to make this sacrifice. Why put off the day when we really leave this planet and truly free ourselves from the original Single Point Of Failure of all humanity.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Aldrin, in his astronaut days, was not one of the proponents of that scheme.
As another poster said, that makes me think what he his saying now means even more than the average speaker, since he has much longer seriously thought about the matter than you or I and had practical experience with off-planet environments.
Perhaps when he got there he realized it would have worked out after all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Having a one way trip would be exponentially more massive an undertaking than going and returning, unless it's a suicide mission.
Even if there were just a 10% chance of living past 100 days once there, and a zero percent chance of ever returning - you'd still find qualified people lined up down the block to apply.
But "Suicide" is a silly term, since you would be sacrificing for humanity and science more than you would be trying to kill yourself. You would simply be accepting that outcome for the greater good (and more than a little bit of selfish interest probably in one way or another, the only way to really internally accept that tradeoff).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The whole point of the article is NO RETURN TRIP.
Nine months is nothing, especially with some artificial gravity options to keep minimal bode density OK.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not going to happen. Colonizing America was easy: first, go there -- a few weeks on a large sailing ship, proven technology -- not without danger, sure, but even so, pretty much routine. Europeans had been sailing large ship across long distances for centuries.
Once they were there, they had to somehow deal with the natives; that didn't always work out, but often enough it did. And finally, they had to make a living. No problems there; it's still planet Earth; the climate is a bit different from England, different crops thrive there, etc., but really, it's not *that* different.
Now, let's go to Mars. Atmospheric pressure is about 1% of what it is on Earth, and it's mostly carbon dioxide. If you like going for walks in the fresh air, don't go to Mars, because you'll never be able to go outside without a spacesuit. You think a leaky roof or a broken heater on Earth is a problem? Try living somewhere where a leaky roof will cause everybody in the house to suffocate. Oh, and where are you going to grow your crops? Outside?
Maybe all of those challenges can be mastered, but I'm not holding my breath. I'd like to see someone establish a self-sufficient colony on Antarctica first, and even that is an easy environment compared to Mars.
I grew up on sci-fi like all good slashdotters, but I'd like to see us deal with our problems on Earth a bit better before we start pumping billions into some impractical space colony pipe dream.
I guess it would all be a gay planet!
a space odyssey last night. I hope HAL isn't the driver of the craft.
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
Hopefully we can send all the conservatives there. Perhaps they can come to grips with their hatred of all things America, and build the "free market", not being "restrained" by those evil, evil taxes, civil rights, torture laws, etc.
It would work out as well as the last eight years of them being in charge, but maybe even better!
Yeah, that was kinda retarded, but I used the hell out of it, especially the Woodsman II. They did such a better job than Scouts.
Explorers were never worth making.
I just picked up his second book (Here if anyone is wondering), though I haven't had a chance to start it.
Realizing that he is a retired submariner, not an author, his first book makes a lot of sense. I love the ideas he has put forth, and he's done a lot of research into his work, but MAN, is his writing style dry :) (I guess that comes from living in a tin can for so long, or maybe just being British)
What a lot of his critics fail to realize is that he didn't approach the subject trying to empirically prove his ideas, but instead, trying to ignite discussion that we may not know everything about the discovery of the new world, but instead, have a Euro-American slant to our history. He achieved this in spades, IMHO.
just an analog boy living in a digital age.
What is really cool is that he employed/exploited a model much like Open Source, inviting any and all with any shred of useful knowledge to prove or disprove his and the team's ideas. This fits in with your observation that he is using unorthodox or non-scientist ways of approaching matters.
I *VERY* much am pleasantly thrilled that he as rocked things to their core. After reading his first book i feel i have become enlightened and yet i also felt for a time a hefty amount of near-malevolent rage at the establishment for pumping us with things of which they have NO irrefutable proof, mainly for domestic or global political reasons.
I hope Gavin/et al keep rocking things to the breaking point, because some of history's greatest liars have for far too long gotten away with shaping our world, and i don't want to live in a world where power-brokers shape MY existence just to increase their arsenals or portfolios. Menzies just reinforces my strenuous assertion that *iii* belong to **nnoo** government, no country and certainly do not sing nor hum hail to any chief. I am a citizen of Earth, first and foremost, and THEN, i am a RESIDENT of the USA (having been born here, in SF, at the Presdio, when it was still part of an Army base...). I'll obey sensible laws, pay taxes, but i hate suffering for fools and greedsters in power in ANY country.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
There is a part of joke in every joke, you know... I'm seriously eying Antarctica, as the polls run me into gloom. It is far closer than Mars and far more hospitable.
Then, as — in the time of my great-grand-children — large cities appear in Antarctica and citizens of that by-then-greatest country on Earth get piled up upon one another, Mars will become the new frontier, where "spreading the wealth" will remain a sick joke for several more generations...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I remember hearing that proposed lunar bases would shield themselves from cosmic rays by burying the modules in a thick coating of lunar soil.
The same could be done with anything sent to mars.
No need to do that, Mars has caves! See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070402_mm_mars_caves.html for details.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?