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. "

Comments

That Analogy Falls Apart

[eldavojohn]

'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.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[Monkeedude1212]

They will eke out a miserable existence and remember earth fondly and try to be live off of what they are doing for humanity.

There's no delusions of extended survival mentioned. That doesn't take away what they would be doing for humanity though.

If we can figure out the kinks we have in our biodomes, I don't see why trying to start a colony there, even if it takes 3 or 4 seperate space missions of people willing to die for it - it would be as revolutionary as the moon landing.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[Shakrai]

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.

Living resources might not matter as much if you can find other resources that make the enterprise economically viable. Every single British attempt at colonizing the New World failed (in spite of the ability to trap, fish, log, etc) until they find a profitable product. Once they found that the settlements took off and the rest is history as the saying goes. There are lots of potential profitable products out in the solar system right now -- there will be even more if we are indeed running out of resources here at home.

I doubt we'll see anything resembling colonization in our lifetimes (it took generations to carry that out right here on Earth in a much more friendly environment) but I do think it will happen eventually. We should be laying the groundwork for it and soaking up as much knowledge as we possibly can.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[Rei]

Extremely well put. There's little on Mars to bootstrap a civilization with. Back in the pioneer days, you could show up with nothing more than the clothes on your back, a hatchet, a musket, a small chunk of lead, and a shot mold (plus a little food and water to keep you going until you got settled). Earlier human settlers didn't even bring such modern weaponry with them and did just fine, knapping knives and spearpoints and arrowheads.

That sort of thing doesn't work on Mars. Colonists will be entirely dependent on modern technology to merely keep the things that keep them alive running. Try tracing back random pieces of modern technology to all of their component parts/materials, and all of those's component parts/materials, and so forth, with the components needed for manufacturing/refining along the way, and if any of those are consumable, trace those back. The challenge of building a colony is ridiculously daunting. This wouldn't be a colony; it's going to be a base. A cramped life support shelter with more and more things breaking every year. They'll be living largely off what they brought from Earth and what gets sent as resupply until the day they die (with the possible exception of local ice and a few other things).

But you know people would volunteer nonetheless.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[dkleinsc]

A smart move if you wish to succeed--the resources [in the Americas] were there for the taking.

Umm, no they weren't. The resources were controlled by a bunch of societies with millions of people. The attempts at colonization 1607 and 1620 were successful, but the resources in the Americas weren't just lying around free for the taking.

Consider also that at least 2 previous colonization attempts (Vinland and Roanoke) were wiped out, and the Massachusetts colony only barely survived its first winter in Plymouth.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[timeOday]

There's no delusions of extended survival mentioned. That doesn't take away what they would be doing for humanity though.

If there is any nation willing to do this, it certainly won't be the US. We can't even let terminal patients die without wasting vast sums to slightly prolong their misery.

So if it happens, some other country will do it. But I guess that's good for us - we don't have to be jealous of their success if we can spin the whole thing as an inhumane travesty.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[thrillseeker]

We can't even let terminal patients die without wasting vast sums to slightly prolong their misery.

We're all terminal, son.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[cetialphav]

That doesn't take away what they would be doing for humanity though.

Which is what? This does nothing for humanity. It isn't like we don't know what is on Mars. We know exactly what Mars is like. For hundreds of billions of dollars we can send an almost limitless series of rovers equipped with a variety of instruments to explore and run tests. Having a couple of humans just trying to survive, is not going to provide a scientific breakthrough.

The only point of sending men to Mars is to prove the point that we can send men to Mars. It's the same reason most people run marathons or attempt to climb Mount Everest. You just want to know that you can do it.

Personally, I don't see the value in that (at least not a few lives and billions of dollars worth). Others may disagree and say that "because its there" is a good enough reason to try, but that still doesn't make it a breakthrough moment for humanity.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[CorporateSuit]

They're not loading up rockets with those dollars. That money is spent on research, design, engineering, and invention. Historically, the money spent on throttling men through space CANNOT be spent better when it comes to improving technology or your way of life. It's difficult to overestimate the importance that space travel has on your modern conveniences.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[cetialphav]

Oh come on. You can do better than that. If you disagree, tell me what you think. Don't put your pretentious labels on me in lieu of a thoughtful argument.

Tell me how sending a few men and women to breathe their last breath on Mars with no hope of return to Earth benefits humanity. Tell me why there really is no better way to spend a few hundred billion dollars. Tell me what the scientific value is for having a few humans there versus hundreds of exploring rovers. If you want to participate in the discussion, then please think of something to say.

For the record, I think being able to colonize Mars is a fantastic goal. But colonizing means turning it into a self-sustaining long-term home. That is a far cry from the suicide missions being proposed. We are so far from being self-sustaining on Mars that there is no point in talking about sending men there. Show me a machine that can generate enough oxygen and water for people to survive (you have to grow your own food, too). Show me how we can generate sufficient electricity, even in the Martian winter. Show me that we can land heavy equipment very near other equipment and people with pinpoint accuracy. When we master those things (and more), then we can start thinking about getting people there.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[tomhudson]

Historically, the money spent on throttling men through space CANNOT be spent better when it comes to improving technology or your way of life.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about war as a technology accelerant. It's why Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year, and almost won the Man of the Century, as the person who had the most impact on the 20th century. War gave us ARPANET which gave us the InnerToobs. War gave us the cold war which gave us the space race which gave us integrated circuits which gave us cpu-on-a-chip and vlsi circuitry and all the other goodness we enjoy today. War gave us the impetus to research ways to treat injuries quickly and effectively and stabilize patients in forward positions, which gave us better techniques to treat trauma. War gave us soldiers who had to be treated, and the budget and will to try to create more effective treatments. War gave us practical radar. War gave us practical ICBMs which gave us satellites. War gave us higher-strength metals.

But as humans, we'd be better off funneling the money into space. Problem is, we'd rather fight.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[Progman3K]

The only point of sending men to Mars is to prove the point that we can send men to Mars.

To not have all our eggs in one basket.

If the Mars settlers can achieve sustenance, the human race will have taken a small step toward the preservation of our species.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[Korey Kaczor]

It's just a slow news day. We're not sending anyone to Mars for a long time, and certainly not for one-way voyages.

We haven't sent anyone to the moon in decades, because nobody wants to fund NASA for it. They're not going to fund NASA for Mars, either.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[symbolset]

The only point of sending men to Mars is to prove the point that we can send men to Mars.

No. The point of sending men to Mars is to establish a foothold on another planet. It's a step toward colonization. Eventually humans will establish themselves throughout our solar system and use the resources we find there travel to the stars. Or we'll die out. There is no third choice.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[w0mprat]

Something to not is food is not the only crucial consumable.

Consumables need to include, toothpaste, medicines, sanitary needs, shampoo/washing detegents. Clothing (wears out with use and washing)

Yet a /. poster probably uses less of these than average. *ducks*

Foods can be stabilised for years such as military MREs (Meal: ready to eat) packets that can have a 3-5 year shelf life. But most of the essiential nutrients in food are prone to break down over time. This is before you consider the effects of ambient radiation speeding up this process.

Mars colonists would have no choice but to have a complete self contained bio recycling system right off the bat. And that manurfacturing capacity better be pretty comprehensive too, for everything from cleaning products through to chemotherapy drugs.

Re:That Analogy Falls Apart

[twostix]

Convict ships used to take six months at sea to travel from England to Australia and no the convicts weren't allowed off at the distant supply harbours.

The first attempts to cross the Arctic and Antarctic required more mental strength than you suggest would be needed for mars mission. Considering that they were in pretty much imminent danger at all times and had absolutely *no* technology to help do it or even know where they were to any great degree.

Some of the comments on here are very telling of what the western middle class has become. Just because you can't imagine having the mental and physical strength to survive life outside your safe, over privileged looked after cradle to grave existence doesn't mean it isn't possible. And compared to the feats of men of history, sitting in a comfortable capsule with new tech to keep you entertained, being able to speak to your loved ones and teams of specialists daily and having plenty of food is so far from being comparable to say crossing a desert or the arctic by foot pulling a four hundred kilo wooden boat full of supplies for six months or being lost at sea for months as to almost be a joke.

Asia is going to absolutely *dominate* the west over the next few years if this attitude continues.

There's a difference between Mars and the Americas

[BlackusDiamondus]

'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.

At this point in US history

[al0ha]

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!

Re:At this point in US history

[drdrgivemethenews]

There are thousands of lines in the federal budget. Why pick on this one? Why not sacrifice a jet fighter instead? Or a bridge to nowhere?

I'll go

[macemoneta]

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.

Re:I'm all for it...

[icebraining]

"The problem will be downloading updates. Pretty much, whatever you take with you is what you'll be playing for the rest of your life."

Actually, unlike food, water and air, digital information could be transferred pretty easily. How do you think we got the rover's data?

"If the team lasts say 10 years, you'll run into other problems, like clothing and maintaining the shelter."

Really? My grandma has clothes older than that, and she doesn't have NASA's budget to buy them.

We'll send women too!

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Re:I'm all for it...

[JWSmythe]

    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. They could fail the reentry and have it burn up. And of course there's the chance of it getting stolen by aliens. :) In any situation other than getting nabbed by aliens, you've lost your supplies. 1,000 miles is an awful long way to trek with no gas stations, or roads.

    Even still, they'll have to learn to be self sufficient. If they can supply themselves, it's far better than waiting for the next launch. Who knows what would happen. Eventually the mission could be scrapped, and they'd be left wondering if they'd get a new supply ship down. What if the economy finally tanks? Or if the US gets restructured (like, in a revolution). I'd hate to be on the ground there, and get the radio message "Sorry, World War 3 has broken out. By the time you get this message, there will be no survivors here. Good luck, you'll be the only surviving humans in the universe."

    All that is with the assumption that everything is utopian at the landing site. Isolation from the rest of the human population can take it's toll. Consider ships at sea. A mutiny wasn't an unheard of thing, and they may have only been out for a few months at a time. Political unrest on a martian colony could be disastrous.