Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sending Astronauts On a One-Way Trip To Mars

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-don't-come-back dept.

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. "

8 of 917 comments (clear)

  1. That Analogy Falls Apart by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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.
    1. Re:That Analogy Falls Apart by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:That Analogy Falls Apart by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:That Analogy Falls Apart by Korey+Kaczor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:That Analogy Falls Apart by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:That Analogy Falls Apart by twostix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. There's a difference between Mars and the Americas by BlackusDiamondus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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
  3. Re:At this point in US history by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?