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.

Comments

Re:pioneers are preceded by explorers

[notaspy]

The American pioneers were preceded by explorers ....

The first human pioneers to Mars have already been preceded by explorers. Most, if not all, of the work to be done in preparation for colonization has and will be done remotely via robots, satellites and the like, an option unavailable in the 1500's and 1600's.

Well, yes...and no.

[mbessey]

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.

Re:Why?

[SilverJets]

Yeah, you probably should have just read the article.

Re:Who Chooses?

[Gospodin]

Columbus was backed by a government and made several trips back and forth. It was only after he went that settlers followed.

Not only that - plenty of American settlers went back home. Check out the history of the first Roanoke colony. (The first one, not the one mysteriously wiped out that left only the word Croatoan carved into a tree. The first one was taken home by Walter Raleigh when they realized they were in over their heads.)

Re:What Rot

[turgid]

Well, I was a nuclear physicist at a nuclear power station for several years and I can tell you that's hogwash.

Re:Pointless and too expensive

[MrEkted]

Some really smart people disagree with the "pointless" part.

"The human race must move to a star outside our solar system to protect the future of the species," physicist Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.

Re:Who Chooses?

[mikael]

Side note: Why do you think people in the past have chosen to leave over fixing what is wrong with their governments?

In England (if not Europe) at the time of the settlers, you had a feudal system with all the land owned by someone and titles granted by the king. Even in the rural villages, what personal freedoms the crown didn't decide, the church would dictate (Even failing to attend church on a Sunday would result in a fine). There wasn't anywhere where you could try and set up your "alternative way of living" without having to get permission from one authority or another to acquire land, employ builders or farmers.

Re:Who Chooses?

[evilviper]

Yeah, the puritans were escaping religious fascism, but they were religious fascists themselves. The reality is that those pilgrims burned "witches" at the stake,

No, they didn't. Though their offspring eventually did...

By the standards of the day, the Pilgrims were much less fascist than those they were escaping.

and committed genocide upon the Natives.

They cooperated with the local tribes, in general. the Pilgrims and the Natives shared their knowledge and resources, and there most certainly was a Thanksgiving feast that lasted for about 3 days, though decidedly far less idealized than it is imagined now (thanks to oversimplification of 30 minute school plays, not any form of propaganda).

They did fight with some neighboring tribes, and killed many, no doubt, but not just because they could. They did so when some of their own people were killed or resources were stolen, but it should be pointed out that they did so in alliance with their local (friendly) tribe. As part of their alliance with their local native tribe, they also risked their lives fighting in tribal wars that they had no stake in.

In reality, they simply didn't have the option of doing anything you're accusing them of. They could barely keep a hundred of their own people alive, let alone working, so executing a few healthy individuals for religious failings would have been suicidal. They were heavily outnumbered by natives, and greatly needed the support and trade of some the local natives, so genocide would also have been suicidal, not to mention extremely beyond their means...

I get the feeling you're confusing the Pilgrims with the Spanish Conquistadors. Completely different area, completely different agenda, completely different capabilities. Completely different history.

But, hey, you're righteously indignant over SOMETHING, so you get modded up for your ignorance.