Scientists Propose One-Way Trips To Mars

vortex2.71 writes "Invoking the spirit of Star Trek in a scholarly article entitled 'To Boldly Go,' two scientists contend human travel to Mars could happen much more quickly and cheaply if the missions are made one-way. They argue that it would be little different from early settlers to North America, who left Europe with little expectation of return. 'The main point is to get Mars exploration moving,' said Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University, who wrote the article in the latest Journal of Cosmology with Paul Davies of Arizona State University. The colleagues state — in one of 55 articles in the issue devoted to exploring Mars — that humans must begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against a catastrophe on Earth."

Comments

Little difference?

[IrquiM]

At least they could breathe and had water when the colonized America.

Re:Little difference?

[ElectricTurtle]

As ol' Dr. Zubrin says, put out the call and people will be lined up coast to coast. What is with people being unable to look beyond their own mindset? Saying things like "I wouldn't do it so why would anybody else?" Is like saying "I don't like onions so why would anybody else?" It's just stupidly narrow-minded and egotistical. Even if "most people" wouldn't go, you don't need millions. You just need a handful, and out of the billions on the planet I'm pretty sure you could find hundreds both willing and able (in terms of psychiatric and intellectual health) if the call were public enough, and even then you'd probably only be able to make use of a dozen (and even that would be one of the largest space-faring crews ever).

Sign me up!

[NikolaiKutuzov]

Three years ago I would have happily signed up for such an adventure, even if it was one-way. To be part of that, oh wow. These days, with a wife and a child, I guess I'll envy those who go, but wont be amongst them.

So I dont thinnk there be volunteers lacking, Even though I dont know wether they ft the general requirements of mental stability to be locked up in a can for a year. Even the early colonists of the Americas expected to make some money and then return. And even in the Americas it was a three month voyage on a ship, not a year in space.

But hell, what a ride.

Re:Did anyone else...

[Qzukk]

If you're seeding technological infrastructure, why send people at all? Send ships of robots and parts, once the robots have assembled the habitat, pressurized it, prepared gardens, located water and what not, then you send people to live there.

Re:China will do this

[Wonko the Sane]

That treaty won't be worth the paper it is printed on once some entity that has enough resources to defend its property rights actually makes a large investment in space.

Re:Does anyone else feel that this article...

[abigor]

There is no shortage of land on Earth. Canada alone could comfortably fit billions, assuming they don't mind living in a periodically cold, hostile environment that is still infinitely friendlier than that of Mars.

Re:unethical

[delinear]

Yesterday was Remembrance Sunday here. If we have in the past and can continue to send people to war with a realistic chance that they'll die, then what's the issue with sending someone on such a noble endeavour as this. At least they will know their lives advanced all of humanity, instead of advancing a few inches into no man's land or paying the ultimate price for the enrichment of a few billionaires arguing over resources.

Forget about colonization

[rollingcalf]

If humans screw up the earth to the point where it becomes unlivable, our species deserves to just become extinct.

But why even need volunteers?

[Chris Burke]

Yes you could find people willing to go on a one-way trip. Even people who are qualified. Sure.

But I don't see the point in sending anyone until we've done enough robotic exploration, excavation, processing, manufacturing, and assembly where there would already be pre-constructed habitats and stores of fuel.

And once you've got a pre-established mechanized facility for people to arrive at, I see no reason not to just wait a little longer until the fuel stores are larger, and a return trip is feasible.

I'm 100% for manned exploration. But I think the time when the only possible human exploration is of the one-way-trip variety and the time when we are far better served by robotic exploration are largely the same.

I mean we aren't talking visiting other solar systems here which may necessarily be one-way. If we can't bring people back from Mars then it's due to a serious lack of technical capability and resources. So, let's use robots until we've fixed the capability issue, and use the robots themselves to fix the resource issue.