Slashdot Mirror
Sending Astronauts On a One-Way Trip To Mars
The Narrative Fallacy writes "Cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University, writes in the NY Times that with the investment needed to return to the moon likely to run in excess of $150 billion and the cost of a round trip to Mars easily two to four times that, there is a way to reduce the cost and technical requirements of a manned mission to Mars: send the astronauts on a one way trip. 'While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return is jarring upon first hearing, the rationale for one-way trips into space has both historical and practical roots,' writes Krauss. 'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.' There are more immediate and pragmatic reasons to consider one-way human space exploration missions including money. 'If the fuel for the return is carried on the ship, this greatly increases the mass of the ship, which in turn requires even more fuel.' But would anyone volunteer to go on such a trip? Krauss says that informal surveys show that many scientists would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space and that we might want to restrict the voyage to older astronauts, whose longevity is limited in any case. "
Just make sure my wife's on board.
The added bonus is that they don't have broadband at home, so they'll accept an 8 minute ping from Mars.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.'
Colonists heading to the new world were heading from a place of high resource (to live) contention to a place of low resource contention. A smart move if you wish to succeed--the resources were there for the taking. The astronauts, however, are not just heading to a place of higher resource contention they are heading to a place of no resources. None for living anyway. You might find platinum ore on Mars but you aren't going to find fur trapping, fishing and logging. This isn't little house on the prairie, this is the cold deadness of space.
You're sending them there on a one trip for one reason and one reason only: saving money. You're not sending them to a new world with more people there and more people coming and food everywhere ripe for the picking. They will eke out a miserable existence and remember earth fondly and try to be live off of what they are doing for humanity.
My work here is dung.
populate the planet, etc etc.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.' Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
I'm departing to mars tomorrow
Just make sure my wife isn't on board.
...I get to pick my co-pilot. I'm partial to Megan Fox.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
How, again, is the cost of going to mars gonna be 4 times the cost of going to the moon, assuming it's a one-way trip on each? I'd imagine the act of getting to Mars isn't much different than the moon, as once you're in space, you've got all the momentum you need. It would take more calculation, and maybe a bit more course correction, but not anything much more in terms of equipment. As for food and water, that would be a limiting factor, but you can send unmanned rockets there with those supplies and others (new equipment for tests, etc.) once/as astronauts land.
I'm guessing the amount of food/resources to support someone for the rest of their natural life would greatly exceed the fuel needed for a return trip. Colonists were heading to potentially fertile land, whereas these folk would be heading straight for a nickel rich dust bowel. Unless they plan terraforming, this is a "one way trip" in more ways than one.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I've often thought that older people would make terrific astronauts.
The low G environment is good for them.
Their personalities are pretty much fully developed so there's less chance of any surprises.
The have a lifetime of experience.
Last, but not least, many would want to do something spectacular with their last years.
I think their would be plenty of volunteers
I'll go. Really.
Absolute statements are never true
A one-way trip would presume the need to send along the materials required for subsisting on Mars and maintaining a foot hold. Anything less would be a denial of the spirit of exploration that has come to define the better virtues of humanity.
Younger astronauts mean a greater ROI. I'm sure there's plenty of well-qualified people willing to be known as a pioneer for the rest of history.
I would do this in a heartbeat.
and vice versa. I think it would be pretty difficult to find a scientist who has the specialized knowledge required to pilot a space exploratory vehicle, and unless thïey plan on zero human intervention to guide this thing, then there would have to be at least one person who is a proper astronaut to accompany them. If they do find one whose willing to never come back, then excellent! I love the fact that just because some ancient scientists are willing to leave here forever to further the cause of space exploration, we actually think that this is a feasible option.
Why does it cost so much to rent out a Hollywood studio to fake intrasteller travel?
I have never understood why would go to such a remote location for only a year or two. I have suggested many times here that ppl should be sent on one-way missions. If we establish a forward base, THEN we can bring them back, if they desire. My guess is that anybody who goes there will want to stay. In the end, the hardest part will be to get them to be self sufficient in terms of O2, water, energy, food, and of course, some light weight manufacturing (esp. on robotics). That is not as hard as it sounds. In fact, I suspect that it will be easier to do that, than to build 2 way traffic.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The cost savings of a one-way trip are minuscule now as everyone has accepted that ISRU of propellant on Mars is an essential part of any mission plan. You don't take with you all the fuel you need to get back.. you make it there.. and most of the plans call for a fully fueled return-to-earth vehicle to be sitting ready on the surface before you send astronauts from Earth to it.
The real problem is radiation exposure. 6 months there, 500 days on the surface, 6 months back. Any astronauts you send will never fly in space again and may have trouble getting x-rays for medical problems in the future. The only known solution to this is to make the habitat module more massive.. which of course requires more fuel...
How we know is more important than what we know.
not only that but what exactly is the point of sending astronauts to another planet knowing the whole time they're doomed? Are we planning on not returning to Mars again? If that is the case why bother sending anyone at all. Mars is important as a potential second outpost in the solar system not just because of the pretty rocks there. Mars is important enough to return and thus sending people to their deaths to get there a few years earlier for a few dollars less sounds nigh despicable.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I would. In a heartbeat.
We could invest probably one tenth that amount in nanorobotics and AI, and probably do ten times as much, and visiting mars and the moon would then be trivial. But no one wants to hear about this, they talk of investing 150 billion in a one time trip to mars and nothing about something that could fix just about every material need humans have forever for much less (nanorobotics and AI.)
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
Why not just, you know, send robots instead? They're smaller, weigh less, don't require all that bulky food, water, and oxygen, and there aren't any ethical issues with just leaving them there when the mission is done.
Once the robots have set up a nice Mars base, complete with locally produced rocket fuel supply, then we can talk about landing humans on Mars. Until then, I don't see the point in asking anybody to go kamikaze just so we can say humans have stepped onto Mars.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Are they any less doomed here on Earth? Or do you have some immortality serum you've been keeping hushed up? People die anywhere and everywhere. At least on Mars it'd be a historic first as opposed to on Earth among millions every day.
... I would actually consider something like that if indeed my wife was on board!
I'd definitely sign up. Then again, I'm neither an astronaut nor a scientist; I doubt they're looking for unemployed MSAEs to sign up. :(
But I'm not at all sure it is cheaper to send one-way trips, because at present, and for at least the first decade (probably several) of Mars life, life can only be sustained by continued shipment of supplies from Earth. This means you're making a commitment to long-term, non-interrupted, freight service. Yes, the freight service can be relatively cheap, by routing through Lagrangian points and using high-efficiency thrust (ion engines of whatever sort), but the reliability requirement cost serious money.
Incidentally, I expect (presumably reversible) sterilization would be required. Even if adequate medical facilities to handle childbirth would be present from day one, any population expansion not only substantially decreases productivity, it also increases support costs, and more critically, extends the length of the implicit freight contract by decades. And until you have several hundred people in a mainly-self-supporting, there's no real benefit to population growth for eventual survival -- with no support from Earth, anything less means certain, absolute doom, and adding even fully productive young adults doesn't change that. As I said, I'd sign up anyway; I'm willing to gamble my chances of progeny on our eventual self-sustaining success, and consequent desterilization, but many won't.
I wanna be the first Martian. The Sun is too harsh on this rock, I need a few more million miles between it and me. Also, I'll be able to plant the first GeoCaches *8^)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By the time we can set up a self-sufficient ecosystem hospitable to human life on Mars, you can bet that we would also have the resources to do a 2-way trip. A lot of unmanned flights would be necessary to set up a colony. One two-way trip is going to cost far less than colonization in the short run, but in the long run, of course colonization wins.
The bottom line, however, is that human exploration of other planets in our system is going to be severely limited until we are better able to capture and utilize the energy coming to OUR planet. We have a much more complex and important task at hand, which is to find ways of harnessing Earth-bound energy in a way that is sustainable and economically efficient. If we can do this, we won't need to ask people to go on one-way trips. Cheap, abundant energy is what enables technological and social progress.
I would. In a heartbeat.
If that's true, why were you afraid to sign your name?
#DeleteChrome
Tell them that there are 72 unspoiled virgins waiting for them.
Just because there is no provision for returning to the Earth doesn't mean we cannot send as much help for survival as we can. Equipment and supplies to build structures, process waste water and grow food, generate power (nuclear, fusion, etc). Plus, if they could survive for a year or two, unmanned resupply missions could be sent out at regular periods until self-sustainability of the population on mars is established.
Really people, if you want to have a human colony on mars, these are the kinds of tough choices that MUST be made. If they asked, I'd go in an instant.
I knew a 16th century sailor once. He often engaged in long metaphysical discussions about exasolar planets and the physical and socialogical equations governing long term terraforming processes. Alas, that was his hobby. Times were hard back then so oftentimes sailors such as him, preferred to keep themselves occupied with such trivial and mundane thoughts.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Can I bring my WII?
no, I don't have a sig
As a real estate agent, I'd be the perfect candidate. I'll set up the first interplanetary real estate brokerage. Now, where was that gold jacket ...?
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
"Krauss says that informal surveys show that many scientists would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space and that we might want to restrict the voyage to older astronauts, whose longevity is limited in any case. "
Brilliant - send seniors to Mars on a regular basis! Perfect way to compliment cutting costs in healthcare reform circles. Everyone over 72, your flight is in 6 months.
Hire some uninhibited, terminally ill but still attractive 20-somethings, give them the minimum training required to run a camera and the space ship's onboard computers, and send them off to film the first real-time space porno, "Missionary to Mars". DVD sales and online streaming revenue will pay for this, with plenty of money left over to fund a proper Mars mission.
I usually post anonymously. Anyway, "93 Escort Wagon", here is a logged in post. It's still not my name.
Take people out of hospitals and send them to die on Mars.
spending any more tax payer money to send humans into space, to the moon or mars, is a ridiculous waste considering the catastrophic infrastructure breakdowns we are now facing in real time.
In the short term, meaning next 20 years, this money would be much better spent repairing antiquated and unsafe bridges, damns, levies and sewage systems than it would be sending anyone to the moon or mars.
Significantly more people will benefit through lives saved and catastrophes averted by wisely spending money instead of wasting it in a time when what we have to gain from space exploration by humans is very little in comparison
Let's fix the continental infrastructure!
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
A person who would be willing to give up their own life so that the knowledge of other people might be increased is probably someone we're better off keeping around.
What happens 3.9 years into a trip for which they only have 4 years worth of food, and we begin to hear their agonized cries on the radio for help and food? "We're dying! Help us!" Yeah, that would gain public support for the space program...
"informal surveys show that many scientists would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space"
A one-way mission to Mars.
Space geeks.
Makeshift weapons.
Welcome to...
DOOM 4!
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
it's a suicide mission doesn't that mean anything to you? why sacrifice good people for this when it will be largely in vain? eventually people will go to Mars and return *alive* it's merely a matter of time and money and their trip will be just as historic if not more so due to the fact that we didn't sacrifice them over a pentagram just to say someone has set foot on Mars.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I don't see why we don't shoot a couple of modules to Mars right now...
1 that makes propellant from Martian atmosphere
1 habitat module with some plants inside, some cameras, and an airlock.
If we get good at landing the modules closely enough together, we could send a robot tractor to try and drag the first two together, and if that works send a power plant that could use the fuel from the first one.
Not one person needs to be sent, and we could check if we're capable of putting down the basics of a Martian base for future use. We'd learn if we can really generate the fuel we think we could, if we can keep a habitat module in good shape for a few years at a time, etc. The power plant could just burn off the fuel just to show it works... or we could send some more power-hungry rovers and have them return to the power plant for refueling once in a while.
After learning what we can, you repeat with the next generation of modules, and eventually you have a ready-made camp waiting for the first human arrivals...
No, they'll be on the third ship. We'll send the phone sanitisers first.
Well, you are here on Earth, you are one among millions, and you are going to die eventually. Why don't you just get the inevitable over and kill yourself right now. What's that? You value the experience of living too much? Oh, ok. Well, how do you think the guy that goes to mars is going to feel after doing very little day after day? Nowhere to go and nothing to do except sit in whatever tiny vessel he arrived in. The novelty is going to wear off pretty quick. He can't even do all that much exploring because he need to carry enough oxygen and food for a round trip. That kind of limits the range he can travel. And there isn't even much to see there. All and all, it's kind of like all of the downsides that Antarctica has, combined with all the downsides it doesn't have. At least the scientists down there can 1) go home, 2) breath air, 3) see animals.
Most settlers and pilgrims went away after an initial explorer returned to tell how beautiful the trip was and how nice the people there were. Or in another scenario, people moved because they would be in harm way should they stay (invasions, wars, etc.) No one in his right mind just went away without the slightest hope of coming back, even if many knew the journey was dangerous.
I'm absolutely sure there are enough people on this planet that would love to go to Mars, never to see Earth again but for a small blue glimmer hanging in the night sky of a red planet. Besides, it greatens humanity's chance for survival, or rather lengthens our species lifespan, if we spread ourselves out in the Universe. We are putting all our eggs in one basket by staying on Earth.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.' Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
That depends - were they planning to settle in New Jersey?
Take a bunch of death row inmates or lifers and seed the new martian prison colony. Henceforth, you eliminate the capital punishment debate - just give them a one way ticket to Mars. (Calling Snake Pliskin?)
I, and a few people who know me, cannot wait for me to get off this rock.
Um, is this 2007 because I'm pretty sure that I saw this at least two years ago....
I am certain we could get people to offer themselves up to jump the top of the highest buildings without a parachute as well. Some would rationalize this action arguing that the "volunteers" would achieve more fame, fortune and societal impact with the desperate and literal last gasp for attention than from their otherwise meaningless lives. I for one will not be a party to this mob mentality. Find a better way or don't go - it just isn't worth the physical or moral hazard cost.
Seriously, I'd go in a skinny minute.
I'm over 50, have had an excellent life, and I've always wanted to go to Mars.
Knowing that I would die there doesn't faze me in the least. I've told my family for years that when I die, I don't want a funeral and all the drama...just drag my carcass to the curb.
If I actually went to Mars, I'd die happy and save them the cost of a large Glad bag.
I am my own gestalt.
Can you imagine truly being the "last man on planet ... Mars" - It's all yours
is so big that we send people to fancy and cool places to die for no reason at all.
This year? Ten people with concrete shoes to the Mariana trench.
Next year? A freighterload to crash into the sun.
Then? We'll put rocket boosters on a whole US state and crash it into Mars.
Galactic penis, baby!
Fine. You go first.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Nanorobots that can cast fusion-style alchemy will cost us more than a thousand times the cost of a Mars trip.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.
Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.
Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
Not true! It's a little known fact that one of the reasons the Pilgrims were dependent on the natives for food that first Thanksgiving was because they'd wasted so much space in their ship's hold on canisters of compressed O2. You don't hear about this much, because the Pilgrims were so embarrassed when they first met the American Indians and wanted to know how they could survive without oxygen masks!
The enemies of Democracy are
Actually, a lot of people moved to find freedom — such as freedom from religious persecutions. (Including those, who went on to persecute other religions here.)
If the Martians get to set up their own government over there — including writing their own Constitution — it could be quite tempting... I just thought, I'll be moving to Antarctica first (with my great-grandchildren flying off to other planets) — Antarctica is just as deserted, but a lot closer to (the current) home, and a lot easier to colonize...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why not start with a trial project under water? Apart from some minor differences (gravity, increased pressure from the water etc) you have an equally hostile environment to human life. If they could survive for more than a few years whilst only receiving limited imports of supplies, then you could take it to the moon. Certainly the learning curve will be more gentle. Saving a few hundred billion on a return trip is kind of pointless if all your astronauts are dead after 6 months.
I'm 53, and I'd go on a one way trip to Mars in a heartbeat. Where can I sign up?
There are things in life more important than personal safety. I think too many have forgotten that.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Every year or so some genius thinks this is their original idea.
It's a very old idea.
And the analogy with other colonists in history is stupid. Those guys could at least count on the air being breathable, there being food and water, there being natural resources for building shelter, etc.
It's still a very good idea.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.'
Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
It was a suicide mission back then too - sail right off the edge of the planet!
I suspect the first person to set foot on mars will be remembered for at least a thousand years beyond anyone who is currently living.
Name...That...Autocomplete!
Yeah, and they also probably expected to have children, make money, and die a hard-working and successful man. NOT going to happen on Mars. Plus back then colonists were egged on by promises of a new Eden- we know darn well that going to Mars will be a hell of a hard time. Not that there weren't colonists who didn't know exactly what they were getting into.
Well if they'd take my overweight 41yo ass i'd make the trip in a heartbeat. My wife would probably be pretty vocal in trying to get me to stay but space exploration, even a one way ticket to mars would be like a dream come true for me. Yeah i'd be laboring pretty hard (as opposed to my email admin job now) to keep myself (and others) alive but the fact that im doing it on another fricken planet makes it all worth it. Yeah, sign me up. Lets get the conditioning program going.
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
While I believe many people would welcome a one-way trip to Mars (the more the better a chance you give them of living there long), there is probably an even larger base of people who would go if that provided good benefits for someone they care. Let's say the astronaut's immediate family gets $500,000 for liftoff, $500,000 to survive trip there, $500,000 for surviving landing, and then $500,000 for each year they survive on the surface, you will get a pretty large turnout of applicants I wager.
We will also almost certainly send supplies there *first*, so the people going there first will know what to expect immediately on arrival. We will also almost certainly keep sending more supplies, and even more manned missions with even more supplies, and so forth.
We will also almost certainly be sending stuff that can be used to create high tech stuff on Mars. Maybe fuel, but certainly "mundane" items and things to grow stuff in/with as well as larger habitats.
30 years from now, if there is still no sight of uploading to computers, I might be willing to go myself.
...the investment needed to return to the moon likely to run in excess of $150 billion and the cost of a round trip to Mars easily two to four times that...
Where is this guy getting his figures? The Direct folks can build a pair of Jupiter 240s for $12 billion. Heck, the ARES rockets would only cost $35 billion to make. Where's the other $120 odd billion going? Okay, $50 billion for a permanent base. That still leaves $70ish billion. I suppose if you invest that in a good mutual fund, you could run lunar base resupply missions off the interest for the rest of eternity.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.'
Yes, but the new world had food, oxygen and a reasonable expectation of living past the time the supplies they brought with them ran out.
I would do it in a second. No regrets.
I have to say this is completely idiotic. Think about why you would want to send humans to Mars in this particular stage of scientific development. It is clear that there is not a practical reason. Anything useful that can be done on mars at this point of technological development of the human race can be done easier by robots than by humans. Even if your goal is to prepare mars for human colonization you will do this faster if you send robots first until you can build a base on mars that produces its own oxygen, food, water as well as fuel for the humans' return trip.
So why send humans now? Well the obvious answer is you do not send humans now. But let us assume for the moment that that we are to send humans. What is the only possible benefit for it? Well the only possible benefit is psychological, or spiritual or what have you. Just knowing that humans have stepped on Mars will make us all feel better about ourselves. And of course the country that sends the people first will have special propaganda benefits. Those were pretty much all the benefits of the moon landings. (And I am not knocking them, they were very real benefits, especially in the 60's when everyone in the US was scared of the Soviets)
Now lets think about it for a second. Will this benefit exist if we send someone on a ghastly mission to die on mars. Would we all feel better as human beings and/or as american citizens that we have sent someone on a suicide mission to mars. That we have exported one of our corpses to the red planet, if you will. Of course not. The idea of sending someone out all by themselves to die alone millions of miles from the nearest other human beings is just terrible. Nobody will be happy or uplifted by such a mission.
Therefore this type of mission would remove the only benefit of sending humans to Mars.
1 - Determine once and for all that Mars is lifeless 2 - Introduce microbes & simple organisms to Mars 3 - Wait a long time until atmosphere is warmed and breathable 4 - Send colonists on one-way trip 5 - Supply colonists regularly with anything they can't grow or build themselves 6 - ? 7 - Profit
Hey! What an idea! They could cure the health care problem in one single trip! (sarcasm) This is dumb....."when the pilgrims left for the new world, they knew it was a one way trip" Well, it's a little different when Mars has NO AIR, NO WATER, NO FOOD.
$150 Billion? To send, what, 4 people to the moon? For a week?
$300 Billion to send those people to Mars for as long as they can breath and tolerate dehydrated food?
How much would it cost to build a colony in, say, Kansas that was completely self-sufficient? Solar/hydro/wind power generation, super power-efficient buildings, non-polluting sewer treatment/recycling, sustainable agriculture, state-of-the-art communication and transportation, etc. Something that needs no external inputs for, say, 25 years. Let's say for a colony of 1000 people.
How much would that cost? Would it have the same scientific bang for the buck?
Let's take your average Future Cities middle school contest and throw $100 Billion at it.
Didn't we (Britain) solve this problem already when we colonised Australia? Sending criminals is the answer!!, we don't have to worry about them dying and they get the freedom of Mars!. voila! Lisa Nowak might be a good candidate...
In the hallowed tradition of such human endeavors as the Tuskegee Anemia experiments, German medical experiments on Jews, and Japanese biological weapons experiments on POWs; we bring you...
THE ONE-WAY TRIP TO MARS!!!
That's right, now you can lay down your life to advance the state of human knowledge!
A return trip from the red planet is EXPENSIVE. Why should Uncle Sam have to pay to schlep your worthless behind back to Earth once you've outlived your usefulness?
By being a good, little, worker bee and, willing, laying down your life at the end of your assigned task, you will help save the most important thing in life, MONEY! And, as an added bonus, you save us the expense of the, otherwise traditional, ticker-tape parade.
So, if you happen to have the advanced skill-set needed to explore another world, come on down to your nearest NASA recruiter. If you qualify, we could be kissing your, disposable, ass goodbye, on your very own suicide mission, before you know it!
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
We really don't want to give Obama any ideas, now. Next thing you know, every American who reaches 65 will be off to Mars.
The one good part about that plan is that we can roll SS and Medicare into NASA's budget...
If not, I'm game.
Seriously, sponsors up the yinyang, not to mention the drama.
Halfway thru the trip they vote to eject someone. Maybe *not the guy that keeps raiding the fridge, but the one that keeps clogging up the...well, you catch my drift...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.'
Yes, but they also expected at least to be able to breathe, and find some water and plants/animals to eat at that new place.
Also, this are no colonists or pilgrims. They are explorers. The first ones. Not the followers who already know that it's going to be pretty OK there.
I don't think human bodies will ever leave this planet in any relevant quantities. There will be autonomous robots, which carry parts of our minds in them trough their programming anyway. And some day in the future, we will transmit our minds as binary streams to their new bodies (robotic, organic, whatever you like) in other star systems.
That would be light-speed travel in stasis then. Not what we think, when we hear those words today. But a pretty great way to travel by any standards! (You could even add extreme error correction, multiple submissions, backups, etc, etc, etc.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
If its one way and they are not likely to live, send convicts first! At least no-one would have to worry about Aborigines getting screwed over, unless you believe in the little green man :).
Honestly, I have been eager to get off this rock since sometime after 1991.
I'm willing and able to shake off the dust of Earth, plus, I'll even make useful and do meaningful chores for the betterment of the ol' mother Earth.
I volunteer the good doctor for the glorious one way journey. Suicide has never appealed to Americans, valorous though we historically are. American's prefer a sporting chance. That is why events such as Apollo 13 or SpaceShip 1 are celebrated so. Americans love it when pilots face the abyss, and pull it back at the last second. Read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe and understand. The one way mission option may appeal Europeans and Muslims, however.
an ill wind that blows no good
Let's kill people to save money.
I would. In a heartbeat.
If that's true, why were you afraid to sign your name?
are you replying to the statement by Mace Moneta? Or to you it is Mr Moneta.
I'm absolutely against this. If our science has to be built upon self-inflicted suffering/death something is very wrong with how our scientists and government are making decisions. Accidents happen, but purposeful destruction of precious life to further our knowledge? That is disgusting. And, anyone who could press the button that sends a crew of men and women to Mars without a way to get back is evil and corrupt of spirit. I will gladly pay an extra nickel to have them come back in one piece. What the fuck is wrong with people who suggest we send people on a suicide mission. We don't need to look at red space rocks that badly, and if we do we can just send robots to retrieve them.
Please DO NOT send any astronauts to their deaths, strive to bring them back alive any way possible. We should be planning on how to protect their lives, not throw them away!
Behave! Or else!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Interestingly enough, like in Antarctica, we can also provide these pioneers with vast amounts of porn. That's pretty easy to do. OTOH, I'm not sure if that would make things better or worse in the long run.
If it's the moon, why could you just send a secondary mission as a rocket. That way you don't need all that weight on the first trip. Stockpile enough fuel on the moon, and you can use it the same technique to refuel Mars pioneers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_%28Stephen_Baxter_novel%29
"Amid this negative climate, a small team of scientists must persuade NASA to fund a manned mission to Titan. They do so by recycling older spacecraft: space shuttles and Apollo re-entry capsules are adjusted to become Titan landers. Despite an attempt by an insane US general to destroy the mission, it successfully lifts off. During the six-year journey to Saturn, one crew member dies after a solar storm, but the use of a CELSS greenhouse for life support provides a continuous food supply, and the astronauts rely on vegetables, grain and fruit from the greenhouse as they travel on."
19th Century invention, the earth was known to be round for thousands of years - it was also known to have twice the diameter Colombus tried to convince half the heads of state of Europe was when he pulled his fast one. If they hadn't bumped into the Bahamas, he'd have been the first to become mishoui.
It seems that all funds spent on space exploration these days is to find signs of life. So how ridiculous is it that this ends in obvious premature death. So go ahead, spend YOUR money on this. Me? I will be doing something better with my money, like getting my dog's butt waxed.
We know what happened to the Golgafrinchans
I'm sensing him, I'm sensing him *OOOO* I have a vision! He is surrounded by unknown entities, in a white building. It has green surrounding it. One of the entities has a mustache. He is very well protected. A fog is closing in... argh! it is gone.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
My boss.
Please, please, PLEASE send my boss. We here at my company would be MORE than willing to do our patriotic duty to sacrifice one man, one smooth-talking swindling lying cheating know-it-all jerkoff who only looks out for himself of a man, all in the name of science.
Please?
Or some other way to easily kill themselves? I know this probably isn't high up on the planning list but the thought of dying of starvation/dehydration eventually on a distant planet may make some a little uneasy. Letting them take the "easy way out" once the food and water supplies are exhausted seems like the most humane thing to do.
Good Lord! Send older astronauts. Send enough MREs and/or technology to sprout seeds. Die a NATURAL death. Sign me up!
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
No American is being sent to their death. None. We don't have suicide missions. Our enemies do sometimes, but we don't. And even they don't force anybody into it — it is all about voluntarily dying for a greater cause.
A regular war just would not do anymore. It would have to be a jihad...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The argument that its expensive to do a return mission was dealt with by the book "Mars Direct" by Robert Zubrin. The question of Mars has come up several times on Slashdot, but never is it really understood that Zubrin worked out most of the mechanics of refueling on Mars long ago. Even more importantly we now have evidence of water - meaning the last requirement for fuel - hydrogen - is in plentiful supply on Mars, thus we don't need to import it. In other words to CO2 atmosphere and fozen water can be made into methane to use as propellant for a return journey. The only requirement is a small nuclear reactor and a lander.
Zubrin outlined a strategy of flying the return spacecraft to Mars first for a soft touchdown. The onboard nuclear power plant would then generate power to synthesise CO2 and Hydrogen into Methane to be used as fuel. Thus the return spacecraft can be fueled up ready and waiting on the surface before the astronauts even lift off for Mars. We could even test this approach with a Mars sample return. We already have excellent rover technology for sample collection.
Zubrin also talks about the Moon as a siren - the moon has less resources than Mars, and in terms of Delta-V (that is energy requirements) Mars is not that much different than the Moon. Thus going to Mars ain't that harder than the Moon. The Moon has less to offer though, and is less hospitable. At this rate we won't see humanity on another planet in my lifetime. And all it would take is a expenditure equal to less than a quater of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Think about that - a whole new planet available for the taking for less than the cost of a small war. A bargan at twice the price.
Those who came to colonize the western hemisphere expected to have a good chance not only to survive, but to thrive. That's why they brought children.
Until there is recycling closed environment technology adequate to the task of colonization, a one way trip is essentially sending the 'settler' on ahead as the first to arrive at their funeral. Who wants to go down in the books as the first person to go to another planet to die? The whole point is to go there to live.
BTW, this isn't quite a dupe. The first time this was covered it was Buzz Aldrin saying it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
How to Live on Mars: A Trusty Guidebook to Surviving and Thriving on the Red Planet, by Robert Zubrin, Three Rivers Press (2008), Paperback, 224 pages, ISBN: 978-0307407184.
Once again, Zubrin delights and informs like no other. This concise, easy-reading, laugh-out-loud, little volume is packed with more solid scientific and engineering information about Mars, Mars exploration and settlement than even "The Case for Mars." Whereas the latter was informative and interesting, but fairly straight-laced, Zubrin here takes a decidedly more lighthearted approach, creating a fictional, early 22nd century guide to surviving and thriving on the new frontier.
As usual, Zubrin's strongest suit is his ability to turn his caustic wit against the foolish, timid, bureaucratic, cowardly, thoughtless paralysis which presently cripples the aerospace establishment, and indeed, Zubrin suggests, the entirety of terrestrial "civilization" (if what we have down here still merits the term.) Perhaps my favorite example is the following passage detailing water reclamation from the exhaust of a space suit's methanol/oxygen fuel-cell (used to provide electric power) in order to extend the endurance of Martians on EVA.
"The water you obtain will include a significant quantity of carbon dioxide in solution, which is why NASA has banned systems that plumb fuel-cell wastewater directly back to the suit canteen. However, despite the claimed medical problem, it is a fact that in the twentieth century, many people chose to drink carbonated water as a matter of preference."
I do not hold with those who regard Zubrin's political asides as an interruption of an otherwise interesting presentation of scientific or engineering information. Zubrin's ability to decisively skewer folly of all sorts, technical, medical, political, social, is the primary reason that he has always impressed me, and in my opinion, constitutes the single best feature of this particular book.
Zubrin's brutal and sustained critique of bureaucracy toward the end of "How to Live on Mars" is positively brilliant. If it doesn't make you yearn to give up the soul-destroying stagnation and conformity of Earth to live on a planet full of misfits, outcasts and rugged individualists, then there's just simply no trace of idealism, romance, nobility or heroism left in your black, flabby, little heart.
I'm pleased to see Zubrin take such a radical turn, or maybe simply to more openly embrace the radicalism which he has never been able to entirely prevent from seeping into his work. This one is not going to win Zubrin any friends in high places, but I suspect it will contribute to the immortality he achieves when the Martians (descended from pioneers who will make the first crossings in Mars-Direct inspired spacecraft) finally throw off their tyrannical Earthling overlords and establish a truly civilized branch of humanity for the first time in far too long.
Review by Eli J. Harman, stolen with impunity.
Shoulda put it in the previous post.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
We should send Death Row Inmates There
Let me answer some of the angry points you made, ok?
And those going to Mars will also have a breathable atmosphere. It is just that it will be a limited confinement.
Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.
Look, just because you are afraid of the unknown, does not mean that others are. Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science. When my children are adults and able to take care fo themselves, I would volunteer (though my wife is likely to nix that). Why? BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL. We NEED to take RISKS. Without those, you do not have the opportunity to make huge discoveries.
There's hardly anything unknown to fear here. The risks are entirely known, although granted, it is possible that there may be some unexpected issues that crop up when we finally do get to mars that the boffins on Earth hadn't foreseen. And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?
Personally, I am tired of those that want to conqueror others on this planet for their resources (read murder), but then get upset about out taking risks that MIGHT kill a person. The west use to be heroic and be willing to get it done. Now, we act like our individual life is all that. Give me a break.
WTF? Now you're just ranting off at a tangent. How about, personally I am just tired of people responding to a post in a knee-jerk manner and making all sorts of assumptions based on zero factual evidence.
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
I remember thinking this while watching the movie 'Deep Impact': providing enough extra fuel to get back afterwards is exponentially* more costly. With a short time available and the extinction of humanity on the line, those astronauts would have been sent on a one way trip.
However, this came rather low on the list of impossibilities and implausibilities in that movie.
* I use this word in a mathematically accurate sense.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Spot on. When the colonists arrived there were already people living in the Americas. History has no analogy for Mars.
I searched for the first person to use the word "heartbeat", and sure enough, in the same sense I use it in this question. No hesitation. They don't need me, but I'll go if they'll take me. Wife knows that from early conversations - I wouldn't ask her, and she'd be stuck with the kids. Everything you need to know me is in my username.
In.a.heartbeat.
I wouldn't HAVE to be a one-way trip, if they'd learn from history and pack a BFG 9000 along with the astronauts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Send Lawrence M. Krauss. Humans need hope to survive. It is most important when survival becomes less likely.
Send Lawrence M. Krauss.
Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.
I bet that should have been without the expectation of a return trip.
"If I had money, I would enjoy flying to Mars," she said. "This was the dream of the first cosmonauts. I wish I could realize it! I am ready to fly without coming back."
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL0647601420070306
If we wait long enough to fund NASA for a Mars colony, then someone else will go. NASA isn't the only organization that can do it.
And if they start a colony and keep it, Mars is theirs.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The only point of sending men to Mars is to prove the point that we can send men to Mars.
If we were only going to send men then you'd be correct. However the real, long term goal is to send women as well as men and establish a permanent colony. The reason for this is to hugely increase the survivability of our species and probably other species as well. Once we have a self-sustaining colony on Mars it becomes a lot harder for nature to wipe us out. Obviously you cannot just land a self-sustaining colony there all at once - or at least we cannot yet - so this is just the first of hopefully several steps along the path.
'Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip.' Indeed, they often did back in the old days, however, I am fairly confident that at the very least, they expected a breatheable atmosphere at their destination.
Yeah they expected air, but the first guy to go had the odds between him falling off the surface of the earth and getting eaten by monsters. It was a pleasant surprise when he actually survived to come back.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
I doubt we'll see anything resembling colonization in our lifetimes
Some of us may given current life expectancies. It took approximately one century from Columbus rediscovering the new world to the first permanent settlements: St. John's 1583, Jamestown 1607. While the conditions on Mars are a lot harsher our technology is considerably more advanced so I'd say the situation is roughly equivalent.
You're sending them there on a one trip for one reason and one reason only: saving money. You're not sending them to a new world with more people there and more people coming and food everywhere ripe for the picking. They will eke out a miserable existence and remember earth fondly and try to be live off of what they are doing for humanity.
Miserable by your definition. I am willing to bet you that there are more than a few people who might be willing to sign up for that trip. Just because you think the lifestyle that would be entailed by living on Mars is bad, doesn't make it so.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I told my wife years ago that I would jump at a chance to go to the moon (Apollo style) even if I knew for absolute certain that a coin flip would determine whether I lived or died. I still would.
"Send Me To Glory In A Glad Bag"
by Don & Mim Carlson/Steve Mason
http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=9213
Wow, get angry much WindBourne?
Hmmm. Wow. Sorry about that. That really WAS very rude on my part. I was looking at my post and another that I did and just realized that my ex had gotten under my skin. Sorry about that. I really did take it out on you and should not have.
Indeed, they will have a very limited breathable atmosphere that they have entirely imported with them from Earth and will be reliant for the rest of their lives to ensure that the machines which maintain said breathable atmosphere do not break down.
Well that is not really true. They will have plenty of CO2 there, as well as iron oxide from which they can break the oxygen from, esp. iron. But the CO2 is easily converted by plants (though will need to provide water or more likely some H2, and it will be slow). BTW, once we strip an O from CO2, we have CO which is really useful for combining with Iron.
And yes, if the issue was to start a colony on Mars without a return trip to Earth, then that is fantastic, but more likely, this will be a one way mission for a bunch of astronaughts to do science and not actually establish a colony. Colonisation of Mars is highly unlikely to take place any time in the next 25-50 years. Further, our need to take risk must be mitigated by the potential gains. What exactly is it that we would gain by sending Astronaughts on a one-way almost certain suicide mission at great expense to Mars, which cheaper unmanned missions could not accomplish?
Actually, that is not the idea. The idea is to send ppl there on a one-way to establish a forward base. Once established, it will be easy to bring in scientists. But the original ppl that go there would be to build out a place for others. With that said, I would be real surprised if the first group of ppl do not do all of it. That is, they will engineer and build future facilities, but will also build and service robots to search the planet.
Finally, the last rant was not about you. I had just read some of the neo-cons positions papers that want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and was thinking of a number of the neo-cons that put us in this hell have flipped their attitude recently about Afghanistan as well as going to the moon or mars. Drives me batty when these ppl back such operations as Iraq/Afghanistan for 6 years, but now want us out when we are close to finally driving AQ/Taliban into the ground (and we are, in spite of the garbage in the paper; that is why Taliban is getting very aggressive). Likewise, we need for ppl to be willing to take us to the moon and mars, but they are saying that these are waste of money. I will say that if we send ppl to mars and they are JUST to go there, do science, and die, then it will be a waste of money. BUT, if they go there and build out a place (obviously in the ground), then it will be worth it for the future, even if these ppl die.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I know there are a few treaties that would have to be modified, but I think we would benefit from having nuclear pulse propulsion and antimatter/fission/fusion reactions on the table. This would reduce mass, allow for more shielding and reduce travel time. A twelve month trip could be reduced to 4 weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
Sauerbraten forever!
spending any more tax payer money to send humans into space, to the moon or mars, is a ridiculous waste
I COMPLETELY agree, so here is how you get to Mars at no expense to the taxpayer:
Announce that whoever gets to Mars first, owns it.
Mine is Good
Construction worker 1: Hey, my son got into DeVry.
Construction Worker 2: That's great, what did he have to do, walk through the door?
Just make sure choice politicians are on board.
;).
Or hold a reality show called "Voted Off The Planet!".
I'm too lazy at the moment so I'll let you all imagine/figure out the details - e.g. 1-way or return.
Lastly if the "right" people get voted off the planet that might actually save a lot more than 150 paltry billions in the long run
They ask if anyone would volunteer.
Hell yes! Strap a rocket to my ass and let's go!
Big science doesn't advance without risks. I'm single, I live alone, and I don't have any children. Thus there is nothing tying me to a requirement for a return trip. A laptop, an internet connection, a Kindle, and a dog (a real dog like a beagle...no foofoo pocket dogs) is all I need. I might miss sex, but I wouldn't miss being bitched at by girlfriends.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It's too logical. ;-)
Bell labs really gave us a big slice of that in peacetime, with the biggest advance occuring when it was thought by the leaders of the USA that Stalin was just a big cuddly bear that was misunderstood by the UK etc. The military-industrial complex is not really responsible for all you credit it with. The space race may have started that way but within a few short years it was no more related to war than international sport. Even the launcher that put sputnik into orbit would have been useless as an ICBM due to the long preparation time and the very short life of the fuel. The same thing could be said about most of the rockets NASA used. They resembled an ICBM in similar way that a school bus resembles a tank :)
I think the only issue with sending people to Mars with no expectation of return is that public support for the space program would quickly turn when news and images of astronauts are sent back and revealed to the public showing them dying of cancer. American's want happy endings for heros. It would be very unsavory to watch our heros die before our eyes, and potential suffering mental issues from the isolation.
The end of their lives would not be pretty...and would in fact be kind of chilling. That would turn the public against NASA for not providing for the return trip. So scientifically it makes sense, but politically it would be a disaster worse than the shuttle explosions.
However, I suspect that China or Russia may not have the same hangups and could be successful at this.
"the investment needed to return to the moon likely to run in excess of $150 billion and the cost of a round trip to Mars easily two to four times that, there is a way to reduce the cost and technical requirements of a manned mission to Mars: send the astronauts on a one way trip..."
Hell, for $150 billion for a moon trip or $600 billion for a one way Mars trip we could send 4,200 troops on a one way trip to Iraq and Afghanistan! Think of all the good their deaths have done for humanity. Man, even my own dark sarcasm sickens me sometimes.
I think the biggest blow the space race has had are the obvious failures. Do we honestly think an entire nation would be just as eager to goto Mars if some 100 something people died in the past 50 years in horrible horrible ways? Let's face it, as long as we have one NASA and one government controlling all explorations and trips anywhere off planet...any failure...small or large will doom the human race to never leaving this planet. Congress will use any failure as a reason not to waste money when there are so many problems here to solve. The resolve of citizens will goto zero the second someone posts a youtube video of a man going through rapid decompression online.
There is only 1 answer...we will fail...and you can not fail...so the only answer is to remove all restrictions and to support the gun hoe attitude of small corporations. When they fail though we'll come back to government trying to protect us through preventing us from doing anything remotely fun.
We can waste billions away hiring countless intelligent people and just have 1 line of code that destroys those billions of dollars in a second. Or we can try to open the flood gates...remove restrictions...find a way to mass produce space capable vehicles...find a safe way to get them all into space as safely as possible...separate your failures so one does not hinder countless other projects. NASA should not be at the forefront of any space race...its time has come and gone. NASA should only be an oversight to small companies interested in bring minerals back to earth. There is NO reason to colonize another planet other than to ensure humanities survival past its own stupidity. Do we really want to risk destroying any remaining courage to go into space on colonizing another planet so early? There is profit out there in many forms...it doesn't take a human being to mine and bring that profit back. NASA should focus on FUNDING NON MANNED explorations and AIDING SMALL BUSINESSES to build robotic establishments off world...capable of producing fuel and mining what resources are there to bring those refined materials back to earth for sale on a global market.
You mean, "anyone"?
Well, there ya go, just send all the convicts that are about to be released onto the streets of California - to Mars! Got a problem with finding homes for pedophiles that are not near schools - send them to Mars! This has to be the best idea since the Brits decided to send all their mentally and criminally insane to colonize America. Sometimes the best solutions are the oldest solutions.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Something like that was proposed back in the 1960s to "beat the Russians to the moon". The concept was that a rocket capable of a one-way trip was going to be ready before one that could deliver a return vehicle. So the plan was to deliver an astronaut or two to the moon, follow up with supply rockets, and eventually send a return vehicle when the big booster was ready to launch it. But the Saturn V worked, and the big USSR booster blew up on the pad, so this wasn't necessary.
To get information about Mars, we're probably better off delivering more capable robotic vehicles to Mars.
I think everyone involved would be charged with murder.
Early human settlers used the "Modern Technology" of their day (knapping knives, spearpoints and arrowheads) to successfully conquer their new environment. Pioneer settlers used the "Modern Technology" of THEIR day (clothes, hatchet, musket, etc) to successfully conquer their new environment. Their naysayer peers probably said things like, "Colonists will be entirely dependent on modern technology to merely keep the the things that keep them alive running. Think of all the component parts and manufacturing technology to replace a musket if it breaks...". New environment, same old situation. The environment may be harsher, but the technology probably makes up for the difference. There's risk in any of the three scenarios.
This idea was expressed and covered on /. about a year ago. The one-way trip idea back then was expressed by (forget his name) someone that used to work at NASA during the Apollo and Moon days...
See this and try to claim that it's even remotely comparable.
Get out, or I'll have vice-president Agnew's headless body throw you out!"
Wow! Wait a minute... After weeks of your colleagues denying the suggestion, that classifying patients by someone as "terminal" — and thus not worthy of continuing care, as already happens in the UK — has never even entered the minds of the respectable authors of "Obamacare", you just had to blurt it out on Slashdot, that you'd really prefer to have such a system...
Shame on you, comrade. Loose lips sink (dictator)ships... Should I report you for spreading this fishy rumor about someone wanting death panels?
Yes, I know, you said, "we can't" (have death panels) — but if you want them to happen, and have the "Yes we can!" attitude, you better be stopped now, because where there is a will, there may some day be found a way...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The comparison to pilgrims and colonialists is ridiculous. By the time "pilgrims" and "colonialists" set sail for America, people were already sailing on ships for hundreds of years. As a consequence, it was pretty much understood that the only things you ever found were water and land. Of course, there was no guarantee there would be land if you kept sailing west, but the earth was known to be round, and so it was a very good bet that there would be land.. So, although it was a risk, there was never the idea of going to a guaranteed death. Quite the opposite, there was the belief that once you got there, everything you needed would be there.
A one way trip to mars however, is just that. A dead end. Unless you bring enough equipment to be self supporting for over 100 yrs (the max lifetime of a person), you're going to run out of air, water or food. Anyone going on the trip would know, ahead of time, it was definitely one way.
You keep using the words "risk" and "conqueror". Life isn't a game you know.
The "cost" for returning the astronauts back into orbit from a Mars landing is often quoted as the limiting factor in going to Mars. The return trip from the moon landings was practical because of the low gravity of the moon relative to Earth (or Mars). This made it easy to carry enough fuel to enable a rocket boosted departure from the moon.
The mass of Mars is much greater than the moon and therefor the amount of fuel required to launch astronauts back into Martian orbit is prohibitive. But this thinking is inside the box; using the same method as we did for the moon as though it were the only possibility.
But once you can build an orbital elevator... You just need to build a second. Send the second up into orbit using the first and then place it on a trajectory into Marian geosynchronous orbit. Now the cost is negligible to return to Martian orbit.
The Orbital Elevator is essential to the evolution of space science. Yet we do practically nothing to develop it even though we have already discovered all the basic technologies that will be required. They just need significant refinement.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Pikabush and Cheneylax, I choose youuu!
Table-ized A.I.
I willingly spent 12 years in the military, knowing that I could at any time be placed in a situation where I would need to give my life in defense of my country. Ok, so I didn't always expect to die, but there were times where it was close, and I fully expected to die momentarily.
My point is that there are some objectives/principles for which it is worth sacrificing a long life. Being able to participate in establishing an outpost on Mars is much more useful than the soldier's traditional sacrifice of "he threw himself on a grenade to save the rest of his team." Now that I am middle-aged and without spouse/children, it seems quite reasonable. Am I qualified? Heck no (unless they need someone to run their nuclear power plant, and can provide some remedial training). Would I volunteer? Certainly!
There is no reason that a search of the US (or for that international flavor, search the world) for volunteers wouldn't find a qualified crew for such a mission.
I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
declare war on them...it's bound to happen anyway...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Call it "colonialization", if it was a serious attempt and well worked out, I bet you'd have a lot of serious volunteers. You wouldn't want old people, you'd want young idealistic scientifically trained couples. It also may not end up being a one-way-trip, who's to say that twenty years after settlement space travel won't become easier? Just make sure they get along good with the natives. :-)
I'm no rocket scientist but it seems like it might be easier and cheaper and we could use it as a launchpad to mars.
Say that ppl in charge finaly finds astronauts to send to this U.S Mars mission, or maybe they dont find, the real question is what is the main mission goals other than propaganda, why should they even spend these money and what will they contribute in the scientific world or the human knowledge and how will that look after 20 years when the amount of money due to technology advanced would be halfed. I guess it would look like the poor monkeys send into sattelites before they send out a human, who is to blame that decisions for ones death to 'save' human kind is appropriate? Also what gave NASA the right to spend earth`s resources that belongs to every living thing without asking? You all know that these kind of space missions little they contributed on bettering the lifestyle of earth and much resources they have spend already that will never be coming back. It is all for maintaining the status of power, that cannot be achived when the platform sustaining it is beeing eaten up. Wake up humans!
2. We evolved to survive on an unguided mudball, third rock out from a slightly variable star; we haven't found the thermostat yet. Sooner or later, our luck will run out, one natural extinction level event and it's game over.
3. It's worth boldly going somewhere that will probably kill you, if and only if, there is a damn good reason to be bold.
4. Our current space drive technology consists of throwing stuff as hard as we can in one direction so we get a bit of usable thrust in another. It's a losing game, a pathetically inadequate method, compared to our needs and dreams.
5. Mars has a deep gravity well, with an unbreathable, and (worse) unflyable atmosphere. We have no known scientific or commercial reason to go there, or means of survival if we did.
6. Robots are expendable, cheap to make, specialized, and inexpensive to remotely control, even in space. Humans, are expendable, cheap to make, generally useful, but ridiculously expensive to operate, especially in space.
7. Robot probes in space, historically have produced vastly more science per dollar expended, than humans. We should boldly go somewhere when we intend to colonize, not to send back wish you were here postcards... 8. To colonize, there must exist usable resources, in vast and accessible quantities, easy pickings. At minimum we will need Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen (CHON), plus metals, trace elements and usable energy. There must be shielding from radiation and the other obvious space hazards. Such resources do in fact exist in limitless abundance, in open space, as the larger comets and asteroids. The orbital vectors and masses (that we know about) are currently a little inconvenient.
IMHO:
a. We (Humans) need to invest heavily in science and engineering that may lead to much better space propulsion, techniques for mining and commercial and civic use of such open space accessible resources.
b. We need to develop much better remote probe and manipulation technology, so the robots can investigate anywhere we want, and possibly alter the orbits of low mass, high value objects, as cheaply as possible.
c. We need to develop space habitats, on comets and asteroids, to exploit their resources as a long term (effectively infinite) space habitat.
d. Our most likely cause of extinction as a species is our non-existent space colonization strategy. We are led by a clueless collection of dumbass politicians who cannot see beyond Buck Rogers pointy spaceship sci-fi and (much more importantly) their own short term military and pork barrel political aims. There is no coherent, international, long term, human survival and colonization oriented strategy.
e. When some damn big rock arrives at 5 miles per second, we are all going to look equally stupid and just as extinct; fossilized human politicians will look almost identical, as the "intelligent" humans remains.
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
Death Panels
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
I have always said I would sign up for the one way trip in a heartbeat. To be the first to set foot on another planet... pick up and examine an extra-terrestrial sample first hand... THAT would be an adventure worth a lifetime. Even if I had to chew the little red pill in 6 months when my supplies ran out, so be it.
Not that that would be an issue... I've seen enough sci fi to know that the first guy to contact the aliens always comes back as their evil leader!
Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
Not with current technology. Not very likely with 2030 technology either, assuming current progress rates continues. Maybe in 50 years' time.
If you send a few astronauts now, there's no way they can be self-sufficient. It's absolutely impossible. They'd have better odds being stranded in Antartica, with temps reaching -50ÂC -- but at least there's oxygen and you can hunt penguins.
There's nothing on Mars. Nothing. Nothing to build anything.
Unless you set up a massive infrastructure there to begin with; but guess what: you can do that without humans. You just send robots to do that.
We do. So your rhetorical question: "Who knows what profitable product there might be on mars?" is ret.. well the answer is "we do." Or rather we don't even need to go there to find out.
I'd much rather spend the resources on a mission to collect some martian rocks. Sending humans over to plant a flag is a nice accomplishment, but the science value is limited.
It doesn't matter who would volunteer or how many NASA folks would be willing to entertain the concept. There is simply no political way in hell such a mission could ever take place.
I can almost see the future NY times headline:
"NASA plans suicide mission to Mars"
I volunteer you to go to Mars. We could even save money by skipping the safety engineering. "Oops, who forgot to fill the oxygen tanks?"
If I recall correctly (from my visit to Nottingham, Liverpool and other UK museums), England used to send death-sentenced criminals to a far away island full of violent natives. For the criminals it was either that, or face death.
I think it may a good idea to give death sentenced people the choice between being murdered or going to mars.
Of course this would have to be *very* well planned (we do not want a insurgence of wannabe martians going postal just to get in the "mars-row").
This should be a one-of shot where they choose 10 or 20 of some people who have "life in prison" or death sentences. The problem is they should also find females to send along (aren't there less female in deat row?).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I'm sorry to tell you that this will not change in the future. There's simply no other way. You don't have a floor to walk on in space. Also note that airplanes also throw stuff in one direction to go in the opposite; it's just that the stuff they throw is found around them, namely air. Also, ships also do the same with water. Since in space, there's neither significant amounts of air nor significant amounts of water, we have to carry the stuff to throw out of our space ships with those space ships.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Food, drinking water, and oxygen will be the major limiting factors. That's assuming you can take along a habitat to mitigate the temperatures and dust storms. If the team lasts say 10 years, you'll run into other problems, like clothing and maintaining the shelter.
Presumably, there would be a mechanism for extracting a tolerable atmosphere for breathing and for growing food, and equipment for turning Martian dirt into agrochemicals. Essentially, Martian raw materials will be processed into food for plants, which will convert it into food for humans, who will convert it into shit. Only some of the shit can be recycled back into the soil (human shit is not as good for plants as horse shit is). After 10 years of dumping the surplus shit outside, you'll have made a good start on terraforming the local surroundings...
After sufficient time, Mars would be knee-deep in shit, and look just like Earth.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
> Sending Astronauts On a One-Way Trip To Mars
One way trip, like kamikaze?
Now I understand why martian people all speak japanese in anime...
Send him some porn and he'll be fine.
we are going to spacelift the whole of fanatical humanity?
if so, why aim for mars? i say lets gun for pluto!
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
NASA plans to empty Kansas?
Well, I am not terminal, you insensitive clod!
Sincerely,
Ray Kurzweil
How about we do like the brits did with Australia? Send PRISONERS! Train them, (especially lifers) and send them to start building a moon launch-site, and luxury hotel. Cha Ching! New vacation hotspot! The Moon! Meanwhile, we could have them build a colony site for themselves.
-Oz
More people will volunteer if they think they might still come back somehow:
"OK, for the trip back you get one empty tube of toothpaste, two cigarettes, one paperclip and one Richard Dean Anderson"
I haven't read all of the replies yet but can someone tell me "what the hell is there on Mars that we want?".
We went to the moon and have nothing but a few advances technologies thay may well have been invented anyway and some glorious memories to show for it.
What possible use could ANY base on Mars be to the great unwashed back here on Earth??
Just to get science fictiony here couldn't permanently inhabited space stations in Earth orbit do just as well and get many more people off the planet in case of some unforseen (or forseen) tradgedy.
Honestly what is the point of doing Mars before we can even move a decent amount of humans off the planet at all?
I
f the tone of the post comes across as negative please dont take it that way I am genuinely interested any comments I get.
Thank you
Halfway thru the trip they vote to eject someone.
Half the viewers would not understand why after they eject someone it doesn't happen for 15 minutes.
Also pretty funny - casting "silly lower-tier-Uni" jokes when you failed to spell Phoenix.
"Hooked on Pheonix worked for you!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I see what you did in those.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You're going to die eventually anyway... Why not go out with a contribution to science and humanity? Have we gotten so complacent and comfortable in our lifestyle that we are afraid to take risks? Look at it this way, you will either spend the rest of your life on Earth, with your 2.5 children, house in the suburbs, SUV, American Idol, etc, or you can spend the rest of your life on another PLANET! Whats so hard to understand about that?
If you RTFA, you'll see this - "One of my peers in Arizona recently accompanied a group of scientists and engineers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on a geological field trip. During the day, he asked how many would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space. Every member of the group raised his hand. The lure of space travel remains intoxicating for a generation brought up on âoeStar Trekâ and âoeStar Wars.â" Seems to me like it wouldnt be too hard to find people willing to go.
Isn't it possible that this could pay off in a big way? For example, the astronauts sent there could make some huge discovery (economically valuable minerals, life, etc), which would cause NASA to drastically increase their exploration budget and probably attract alot of private industry's attention as well (think Gold Rush type scenario). The point is, given a groundbreaking discovery, the astronauts arent likely to be alone on Mars for too long.
Where do i sign up? :)
I can't see any benefits to the science for sending man to anywhere like that. Unmanned space missions have produced more than enough data for the scientists. Ever the trip to the Moon was carried out by political reasons (during the Cold War) most.
Anyone going to Mars would be paid a salary from NASA - and I'd guess an extremely high one. Also, they could charge whatever they could charge for interviews with media and for research from other interested parties. With luck, if they managed to live for more than a few years, they (and their families) would become very rich and perhaps very powerful. Perhaps powerful enough to pay for their own ticket home.
What about our thriving Antarctic colonies... oh
When NASA gives you the call, don't kid yourself that your death is for the benefit of anyone else but you.
What will be driving you will be your desperate desire to be a hero, selfless and brave. On your journey out you will realise this (if not before) and become morose at the thought of your own stupidity, and the long lonely drawn out death which awaits you, just so that the rest of us would admire you. What a tool.
I'm not buying it. If you do it, it will be because you are a dimwit. Don't bother.
I reckon a new version of Space Cadets should be started in which people are fooled into thinking that they are volunteering for a one way trip to Mars. Once there (not really there, just fooled into thinking they are) we let them starve to death, just like on the real thing. They'd be glad because they would think they were doing something heroic, and the rest of us would be happy to have got rid of a bunch of romantic nut jobs.
about the human race...
One of the posters above pointed out that colonization of America depended on finding a profitable product. We are presently looking for the wrong things on Mars - evidence of life is scientifically interesting but not a motivation for colonization. Discovery of a viable source of platinum ($1580/ounce), palladium or any of several other resources on any extraterrestrial body will almost instantly cause commercial colonization, whether it be Mars or the asteroids. Initially exploration and exploitation might be mostly robotic, but pretty soon it will be economically better to have people 'on site'.
Also, a lot of prospecting can be done from space, robotically, etc. but there's nothing like 'boots on the ground' with the creative intelligence to read the clues and say 'dig here'.
And every step will sooner or later motivate farther steps, until we have hydrogen mining ships diving into the atmosphere of the gas giants, scooping up and compressing the gas.
And people will start to complain about waste gas littering the solar system and clouding up the view of the stars. TANSTAAFL.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
If a trip to Mars costs $600 billion, then with a little more money we could build a real spaceship and use it to travel to Mars and other places in the solar system. The ship would have:
1) artificial gravity using rotation.
2) nuclear propulsion.
3) small crafts that can land and take off from planets.
Such a ship could get to relativistic speeds, according to project Orion...near 10% of speed of light, theoretically. Mars' closest distance to Earth is 54.6 million km. With 0.1c speed, Mars can be reached at approximately 120 minutes, i.e. two hours (the average distance between Mars and Earth is around 12.5 light minutes). In reality, a trip of about 100 days is not that long, compared to the 600 days trip to Mars.
We should stop fearing nuclear power. It's a tremendous force, we must use it for the right purposes.
The Orbital Elevator is essential to the evolution of space science.
You do realize that humanity does other things than space science? An orbital elevator would also be useful for say, building a space-faring civilization.
Aldrin's got a useful contribution to the debate - go to Phobos first (easier to reach and leave since it isn't at the bottom of a gravity hole).
This was discussed recently here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/26/0410259
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
I got balls of steel, tell me what needs to be done, make sure my family is well compensated, and then send me off on my way with a cyanide pill for when I have accomplished all that was necessary for the mission.
As Jack Bauer always says, I will do whatever is necessary for the mission to succeed!
As long as everybody is like minded, then there is no problems! Good luck though,
people ready to give their lives for a cause such as this are few and far in between!
Just send some criminals.........
I've thought for a while that, sometime within the next 20-30 years, we'll see a reality show where convicted pedophiles were offered a chance at redemption via a one-way trip to Mars or another celestial body. (Ganymede would be appropriate.) Call it a mixture between "2001: A Space Odyssey", "To Catch a Predator", and "The Running Man".
(So basically, take the premise of Acceptable.tv's brilliant Pedophile Gladiators -- featuring Drew Carey! -- and put it in space instead.)
Honey, for example, never ever spoils.. they have found jars of it 10K+ years old.. And theres bee pollen, etc..
Many would willing give their life to help build an establishment for their country or just for science.
We sent people to the Americas to establish a colony for our country - and look what happened!
[quote] we might want to restrict the voyage to older astronauts, whose longevity is limited in any case.[/quote]
And you thought the Eskimos were tough on their elderly?
The UN years back said, as best as I can paraphrase, "The soverignty of a planet is dicated by it's inhabitants."
Effectively the first people to get there own Mars as a whole.
First people there get to start carving up the planet into lots and sell them.
That is a lot of industrial space for landfills, mining operations, toxic waste storage, etc.
I for one would gladly go with a team of 6-12 people just for the purpose of establishing the Martian Government, then promptly emminent domaining the whole friggin planet and granting equal portions of the planet to the 6-12 people living there. Then a few UN treaties later bequeathing my land stake to my relatives back on Earth since international and Interplanetary treaties are "The law of the land."
Think of the wealth opportunities and you will get MILLIONS of volunteers to go. 5 million square miles of potential mineralogical weath is more then enough motivation to secure your bloodline's fortunes far beyond even those crooks the Kennedy's could ever have dreamed. Even from a raw space issue a 4 mile deep toxic waste storage facility is going to pan out money.
I know 40 elderly 70+ folks that would go just to die on another planet. Hell (ironic?) we could turn Mars, at the very least into a giant planet sized mosoluem\graveyard.
"The soverignty of a planet is dicated by it's inhabitants."
That phase carries weight many are missing...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
1. it will be financed by a huge corporation, not a government. think Weylan-Yutani from Alien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's_Bay_Company
2. send persecuted/ troublesome/ despised religious minorities out there. think ultraorthodox jewish sects, scientologists, ultrafundamentalist wahhabi muslims, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe because he doesn't have an account and can't be bothered to create one.
- "What was the overall success rate for getting a mission to mars? 50%? It'd suck to wait a year for a supply launch to be readied and launched, just to miss, and continue to drift off into space. There are other errors too. They could miss the landing zone by 1,000 miles."-
Of course you are right, it could burn up. But having people there waiting might actually increase the likelihood of a supply ship successfully landing. The colonists could set up a homing beacon that the supply ship might lock on to, eliminating many navigation problems over the long journey.
I think it's funny that this is a serious for a Mars mission but the "Mars Direct" guy was labeled as an extreme kook. Mars direct planned to launch a return vehicle and fuel processing station (unmanned) to refine fuel from the Hydrogen in the Mars atmosphere. This way, the first astronauts would not even leave Earth until the return ship were safely there and fully fueled.
Combining the two ideas, the ready fueled return vehicle could itself be the homing beacon that the manned ship locks onto.
I know; It made LOADS of money for EU as well as brought you tons of raw resources and finished products. It allowed you to expand your nations amongst the world and made EU the mighty rulers of much of the world for several centuries.
Of course the downside was that it kept you from being a single nation ruled by either Kaiser or Hitler. Worse, it helped you to keep your freedoms/rights, when others wanted to take them from you. Why just imagine, you could be part of the USSR and ruled by more stalins (USSR likely would still be today if not for the economic might of America). And even now, Canada, America, and Australia remain some of the biggest trading partners of ALL OF EU with FREE MONEY and TWO WAY TRADE (as opposed to nations that fix their money as well as do pretty much one-way trade).
Yes, It truly was a bad deal for EU.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That is the best way to spread our species far and wide. Ask the Polynesians who settled Hawaii who must have thought "It's crowded here, so heck, lets pack up the wife and kids and sail west. There has to be an island somewhere." Ditto for every human range expansion. I say send the missons one way with YOUNG couples, and all the gear required to colonize. You will find plenty of every race and creed who think like that Polynesian :0)
The only way I see this being possible is if manufacturing gets to the point where anything...from hardware to medicine can be made on the spot. The raw materials question - makes it a tricky proposition! My personal guess: Perfect 1) manufacturing processes and 2) automated resource gathering processes (probably through robotics or the ultimate future technology... nanotechnology). Once you're there, you can build what you need, more O2, build another generator. More food, build out another hydroponics level, etc. If you don't have either of the above, don't go on a manned mission to Mars.
Mars has Forests, wildlife, water, and air we should do this, until then it's NOTHING like the pilgrims.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Orbital Elevator == Pipe Dream.
Won't happen. The technology needed to do that would mean we wouldn't need it; not to mention it's extremely dangerous to peple not involved with it.
"required to launch astronauts back into Martian orbit is prohibitive."
what? why do you say that? It lokos like at this point all we need to create fuel is on Mars.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't forget it's also a rich source of humour!
Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
At least I would, if I weren't a cog in the Pentagon propaganda machine.
If we can only afford 1 way trips, why wouldn't we just continue to send robots?
Even if we was going to eventually send humans on a 1 way trip, it seems like it'd make sense to already have the colony constructed robotically before we ever launched the mission.
this isn't about risks, it's about certainty.
Going and returning is risky.
If we can't get back, then what's the point? Hey look, we were the first people to listen to people die on a distant rock.
It's great that someone who knows they would go to tell others risks is ok~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That was my first thought. But then we don't know how gravity works yet, do we? There may yet be another way.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
"If that's true, why were you afraid to sign your name?"
Because NASA isn't going to use Slashdot to recruit volunteers for a Mars mission?
It's been a long time.
in excess of $150 billion and the cost of a round trip to Mars easily two to four times
Didn't we drop 700 billion for Wall Street banks and another 800 billion for a "stimulous package"? Seems the cost of Mars is not so much anymore.
Ben Bova in his novels Mars and Return to Mars captures the drama of colonizing Mars. These ScFi novels are a great read for the human side of the equation.
I'm in ! Won't hesitate a nanosecond !
What you need is a vacation on Venus...
I mean, I probably would, however there would seem to be limited practical value for sending someone to mars in order to let them die. About the only lasting value I can see is to simply have done it, as in "Well thats done, now what?".
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
We've never successfully maintained a closed, artificial environment for any length of time. Some of the attempts were not completely closed systems, and others experienced huge problems in maintaining a liveable atmosphere. So the bottom line is that you'd either have to bring enormous quantities of life support material (oxygen, water, food, etc) with you, or have some reliable method of manufacturing them on site. The first is obviously out of the question for a mission of any length. And we don't really have the technology down to do the second.
The point isn't that no one wants to fund NASA to go to Mars. The point is that no one wants to fund a trip to Mars period. Going to Mars would be really, really expensive, and it's not clear how any potential investor could ever recoup the initial investment, much less make a profit. This is borne out by actual experience... we've had the technology to go to Mars since, what, the 60's? So why hasn't anyone gone? The answer: it's too expensive for what you'd get out of it.
Hmm.. why not cut out the middleman and have the DoD buy and use the (now surplus) shuttles with an add-on IP stage to get to and land on Mars. Last time I checked the basic structure would survive re-entry and provide a convenient base ready-made.
Just a thought.. (DoD has 10* NASA's budget, this would be small change.) :)
... signing up for virtually guaranteed premature death is something else entirely. Fewer people than you think would be willing to sign up for a suicide mission for the greater glory of science.
Your assumption is that we'd be sending the return fuel with the spacecraft. So you're willing to risk the lives of several people to get around that 'heavy' cost.
There have been engineering plans that have been up for years regarding the sending of an unfueled return craft to Mars before the crew even leaves Earth. By either bringing along some Hydrogen or landing and making use of on-site water; Hydrogen can be reacted with the CO2 in the air to produce methane fuel for the return voyage. The pioneers you refer to didn't carry all their fuel with them; they learned to 'live off the land'. The fuel generation process can be monitored from the Earth and doubled for mission redundancy.
Aerospace engineers prefer not sending people on one-way rides.
Ok, name one. Your product of choice can't be something that we don't have any earthly use for (pun intended) - so stuff like He3 is out. It also can't be something that would be prohibitively expensive to 1) develop and launch mining equipment for, 2) smelt/refine/process in space, and 3) return to markets on earth in salable condition (i.e. it can't burn up in the atmosphere).
The Slashdot crowd is big into proclaiming that there's this huge untapped market out there for materials from space... but if that's true, why aren't we already mining, or even planning to mine? The answer: there's no way to do it profitably.
Are you really going to claim that in the entire solar system there isn't one single resource that could be profitably exploited by mankind?
There isn't. Not unless it happens to be on Earth. The fact that it's on Mars (or any other planet...heck even LEO is prohibitively expensive) makes whatever you might find there unprofitable right off the bat.
Even if Mars had watermelon-sized diamonds lying just under the surface, it would not be profitable. It might cost you $300m, to be very optimistic, to bring just one or two back, since bigass diamonds aren't light and you're on a tight budget. There wouldn't be many people willing to pay for one and even then, you'd saturate the market for fuckin' huge diamonds pretty quickly (to say nothing of the threat to your business from synthetic diamonds). Your best bet at making a profit on Mars would be to use it as a tax haven for a telecom or insurance company, and even then it would take decades for the investment to pay off, and Somalia is RIGHT THERE.
Look at the expenses that go into retrieving the most valuable resources on Earth. Until making trips to space are somewhat comparable to those costs, nothing in space will be profitable.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I love the fact one of the tags is "getyourasstomars".
First: before we launch into a mission to find profitable materials on Mars, we need to have some sort of a plan for what those things might be and how we intend to recover them economically. It's not good enough to say "who knows what there might be".
Second: he didn't actually claim there was nothing in the entire solar system that could be profitably exploited - his claim was limited to Mars. However, I'll be happy to step into the breach here - no, there's nothing in the solar system that we could profitably exploit. The solar system is made of the same stuff the earth is made of: silicates, carbonates, iron, nickel, etc. To be able to profitably exploit resources out there, you'd have to identify some material that is 1) incredibly useful on earth, and 2) in such short supply on earth that it would be worthwhile to expend all the resources required to identify/locate, mine, process, and return to earth in quantity. I have never heard anyone mention any substance that even remotely meets these criteria.
There is quite simply no economic reason to be mining anything in space... or we'd be doing it already.
Probably technically possible. Not economically possible, though.
Of course you do... you're talking about spending other people's money, for one thing, and you don't have a firm grasp on much of it you're talking about, for another. Doing a project like this would soak up a significant portion of the GDP of the United States until the self-sustaining point was reached. If you don't believe me, read the industrial process stuff required above again. And what would the benefit to the US taxpayer be?
And I can still see that this is nuts.
Ok, then, we'll just drop you off on Mars naked - after all, Mars has all the stuff you need, right? Actually, of course, you need a whole bunch of, you know, equipment, to do hydroponics. All of which would have to be shipped there, at great expense. You also need life support, food, shelter, water, etc, while you're getting started.
The relative humidity is sort of irrelevant - sure, the atmosphere is holding almost all the water it can - but that's just because it's quite cold and low pressure, and can't hold very much. You wouldn't get very many grams of water out of the atmosphere. There may be water ice you could tap into, but that's not a sure thing.
This problem is a lot harder than you make it sound too. We still don't know how to maintain a completely closed artificial ecosystem. The only time we've tried (Biosphere 2), we had significant problems maintaining oxygen and CO2 levels within healthy limits.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. People vastly underestimate the difficulty of getting a colony set up and running. The first three or four attempts on the North American continent failed, and you didn't even have to worry about breathable air or liquid water.
The NASA line in your budget is their current expenditures. We ain't colonizing Mars for $15.9B/year... their budget would have to look like the DOD. Probably more. And that, we really CAN'T afford.
... they give me one of those uber-cool replicators so I don't starve. Earl grey coffee and klingon blood wine must also be programmed in the replicator! =)
This isnt the 60's you know...
Until every possible risk has been eliminated America and Europe should not send anyone into space as they may get hurt.
I think we'd be better off going directly to the asteroids. Easier to mine, no gravity well, we can even spin one up and if it stays together (don't do this with slushballs, obviously - choose an iron/stone asteroid), we've got "artificial gravity." No worries about aerobraking. Less worries about the corrosive peroxides that permeate the martian dust. Don't need much power to send stuff back to earth on a low-energy trajectory. No sand-storms, and a nice hard vacuum is conveniently available for all sorts of manufacturing processes. Consistent solar energy (no clouds, sand-storms, etc).
Just dig in and make yourself at home.
Compared to the asteroids, Mars is a cul-de-sac, a dead end, a waste of oxygen - literally.
(sigh) My first thought after reading the summary was that there'd be sarcastic comments about who'd you want to send.
Was expecting political commentary though. :P
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I snail-mailed JPL maybe 15 years ago with this idea, well presented, and they had the courtesy to reply to me that such a thing could never be considered. Hopefully times have changed and there is a place in society for geek heroes.
I believe this same idea can across Slashdot some time ago too, maybe a couple of years ago.
It's like the difference between an extremely hazardous military expedition and a pure suicide mission.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This might get really dangerous, you never know what an excavation might reveal!
Better to send one marine, lots of ammo and a chainsaw...
I would love to go, it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Valentina Tereshkova (the first female cosmonaut) is on record as saying that she'd take the one-way trip.
If I thought that something useful would come out of it, I might volunteer ("something useful" being one caveat ; details of scheduling being another). But I think it's really a false dichotomy.
No, I haven't RTFA. but I've enough respect for Lawrence Krauss to expect that he's addressed this point. Oh FSCK it, I'll just RTFA ...
Krauss makes good points, but to my mind the more significant problem is going to be that of the travelling. As Krauss says, the biggest problem is the in-flight radiation. And the only effective solution to that is mass. Which slows travel times (because it required energy for acceleration. So, one way or the other, we're going to have to get used to long, slow trips in massive space craft.
Once you've decided that you're going to go down that route, the future becomes clear : use robotic craft to put a solar-powered engine onto a medium-sized comet ; put the comet into earth or lunar orbit ; carve off chunks for shielding and reaction mass, to go off hunting more comets/ asteroids.
In the interim, you've got to develop the technologies of living in a closed environment to the point that you can close the ecology for a trip of a few years, with people on board.
Once you're there, technologically, sending an exploration party on a 10-year round trip to Mars is just a high-tech space-borne latter-day version of the voyage of the Beagle. (Which made Charles Darwin's scientific reputation, for those who don't get the reference.)
No, it's not a risk-free option (IIRC, a couple of the Beagles sailors died in accidents and or disease). But life isn't risk-free. ... well, they're already equipped to last another decade or so, so they've got a good deal of time to improve their technologies.
Oh, and incidentally, if the Beagle-3 happens to hear of an asteroid sterilizing Earth while they're away
By the time that we can do a multi-year trip to Mars (one-way or two way), we'll be good enough at living in space to not need to worry about it being a one-way or two-way trip. The biggest remaining problem would be getting a return-to-orbit craft onto the ground. And that can be done robotically, until we're confident of the technology. Hell, land three return-to-orbit craft and use them to hold down the corners of the habitat.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Run-away greenhouse effect.
NO! That is NOT a threat at all. Where do you think all the carbon that we are releasing came from? It was originally in the atmosphere where it was captured by living organisms and converted into limestone or fossil fuels. Hence, even if we burnt ALL the fossil fuel on the planet we would never produce a runaway greenhouse effect - in fact there would still be less CO2 in the past because of that which remains trapped in limestone.
The danger with the greenhouse effect is that the change to the climate may reduce the number of humans that the planet can support leading to famine, floods and probably wars. It will not - directly - lead to humanities extinction.
Send convicts. If it turns well, then... just look how well Australia turned out :)
I don't know about their methodology, but if the country, where thousands have died from a heatwave, that happened to coincide with a holiday season, is ranked #1, something is seriously wrong with it...
At any rate, such benchmarks are nearly meaningless, because, as Joseph Stalin put it, "People who vote don't matter. People, who count the votes matter." As with benchmarking computers, there are too many dimensions to consider, so certain "judgment calls" have to be made in order to be able to produce a single-dimension rating from best to worse. Even identifying the dimensions is hard enough. Measuring each one is even harder, and objectively assigning proper weight to each measurement is nearly impossible. The opinions and agenda of the people doing the measuring and weighting come into play and affect the results far more than the actual underlying facts.
The WHO-study of 2000, for example, was overseen by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and a socialist. According to her, it is the equality of distribution of the health-care, that matter most, rather than the actual amounts spent (perhaps unequally!) — simply because "there is no consensus on what spending is appropriate".
Other "studies" have similar problems — they fault the US (and take off points from its score) simply because it does not have "universal" health coverage. In other words, ours could be the most amazing hospitals in the universe, but if they ask to be paid for their services, they'll be rated below Costa-Rican and Maroccan, where the care is paid for via taxes rather than fees, and is therefor "free".
The lesson for you here is, whenever given an opinion (especially of bombastic kind), check out, if the opponents of opinion-holder have already made a rebuttal...
Here, read more about how the anti-US, pro-Socialism studies were rigged...
I am trying really hard to prevent the America's health-care from becoming the spectacular boondoggle like our public (!) schools, for example... Even if our hospitals really did all suck as badly as New York Times would make you think, handing them over to the government can only make things worse. Not better...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.