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.
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.
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.
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"
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
I call BS! Columbus was backed by a government and made several trips back and forth. It was only after he went that settlers followed.
The settlers were people who were so fed up with the way their government was run that they would risk everything they had to escape it. Although I'm sure getting the ship and supplies was expensive for the day, it's no where near as expensive as it will be to get to Mars. Therefore Mars settlers will have to be unhappy with the government and require a great deal of money.
[sarcasm]Perhaps future Mars colonists will be republicans escaping the Obama administration.[/sarcasm]
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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".
The settlers were people who were so fed up with the way their government was run that they would risk everything they had to escape it.
Where do I sign up? Get to go to another planet (boyhood dream) AND get away from the three centuries of built up corruption? Deal.
Side note: Why do you think people in the past have chosen to leave over fixing what is wrong with their governments? Is it due to the vast number of entrenched bureaucrats that are satisfied to maintain the system that they think benefits them? Or that people in power have a habit of maintaining that power? Is it that the only other good alternative is Revolution?
- Kal`Goblez
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
It is not pointless to colonize mars.
Establishing and growing a colony to the point of self sufficiency exponentially increases the durability of our species as a whole, as well as increasing our pool of resources and livable space.
With a colony on mars, we don't have to worry so much about a space rock crashing to earth and causing human extinction.
While we're on this premise, calculations show that even if humanity survives such an event, the utterly massive EMP from the impact would wipe out even the most shielded systems. Off-site backups of the most important pieces of human knowledge anyone?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
A suggestion: we need to stop thinking of the beanstalk as only a way to move material up to orbit. It is also a way to move stuff down from orbit to Earth. It is important to keep that in mind!
If we design it correctly, the beanstalk will use regenerative braking on material being moved downward. So long as we are moving more mass downward than we are moving upward, the beanstalk can generate energy and the cost to move things to orbit becomes no cost at all. We could even end up with surplus energy whose sale could fund other aspects of the project.
It doesn't matter what we ship down. It could be moondust: regolith scooped up into containers just for its mass. Possibly used on Earth as building material: if the containers were designed for it, they could be loaded onto gliders on a stratospheric platform attached to the beanstalk, and delivered to construction sites within a radius of a few thousand miles for less than the cost of quarrying, crushing, and delivering native aggregate.
If we developed the technology to capture an icy comet or asteroid, that would be even better. With solar power the ice becomes water, and then its waterwheels all the way down. That's 26,000 miles of waterwheels. That's a lot of hydropower.
While I doubt that the technical problems of building and anchoring a space elevator will ever be solved, the advantages would be so great that I strongly favor research in this direction.