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.
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.
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.
And if this were 1606, I'd agree.
However, we already have maps of Mars. We have reasonably fast communication capability and data uplinks. People "on the ground" can relay useful information without sailing two months back to the motherland (not to mention the incredibly wasteful notions of either carrying return fuel, or carrying a fuel refinery, both of which occupy space and weight that could be better used to equip the first visitors properly for their trip.
Sending astronauts to Mars to stay permanently, without any experience of the efficacy of the technology, is inviting disaster.
Sending astronauts to Mars to stay temporarily, without any experience of the efficacy of the return vehicle, is inviting disaster.
Overcomplication in mission profiles and equipment is a greater problem. The first mission there should be a simple, straight-shot delivery vehicle, loaded up with habitats, tools, and backup equipment for a one-year camp on Mars.
The second mission, which should be launched two or three months, not years, later, could include a return vehicle with additional supplies and food. The problem at Jamestown was that they brought along insufficient resources of every kind. Dedicating half of the first mission to coming home again is the repeat you fear.
It seems rather ironic that Aldrin himself was involved in analysis of the cycler approach, but is now advocating a one-way trip.
I feel like that adds more wight to his current opinion...
You're assuming that those who went somehow represented the view of he majority of people and that their idea of "fixing" the government was what most people wanted. One modern day example may be a hard core communist who wouldn't be happy with anything but communism. To him the government is horrible and should be torn down then rebuild among glorious marxist views. To almost everyone else he's an insane nut case who should be locked away. Even those who don't like the government wouldn't want his ideal put into place since to them it's much worse than the status-quo.
Most likely you'll get to experience all new forms of corruption which aren't bound by centuries of safety measures. Except you'll never be able to get away from any of the idiots and politicians (ie: dictators likely) who now control your very life.