Slashdot Mirror
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."
At least they could breathe and had water when the colonized America.
This is blinging
OK boys, I need someone to take one for the team. The world will celebrate your sacrifice long after you perish on this journey. We'll even see if David Bowie will do a new version of "Major Tom" for you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Invita Invidia
About 15 years ago my dad told my mum that if he had the chance for a one way trip to Mars he would take it even if he wouldn't last very long.
She wouldn't speak to him for a week.
Yeah, as it will already be hard enough to keep normal people psychologically stable all the way there, and from throwing each other out of the airlock, let's send criminals and crazies :) I don't think they will even arrive there. You could just as well shoot them on-spot.
It's not going to happen. At least not in the western world. The US space program is highly political. NASA requires the good will of the congress. Since it would not be politically favourable to send people on a one way mission, NASA would never get funding for it.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
can't be much more expensive than keeping them in prison for 40-50 years
Ah, yes, the slashdot we all know and love. Some bozo claiming that it costs about the same to keep a person locked up in federal prison as it does to send him 45 light-minutes away to a place with no water and practically no atmosphere where absolutely everything will have to be sent up there. And of course, not even a symbolic attempt at showing some cost estimates. Yes indeed.
I vote we send all of the "Get our asses to Mars" crowd and leave them there. BTW, they should fund it themselves.
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.
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.
Idgarad's Martian Clause
"If at any point a scientist professes the colonization of Mars, and in the course of that profession, cites early settlers on Earth, has in fact declaired himself a moron."
A: When settler's got to the new land, they was an abundance of natural resources to sustain life.
B: The gravity, radiation, and climate was similar.
C: The general rules of survival remained the same.
D: The air was breathable
E: The water, drinkable
F: The atmosphere was the same and thick enough to stop micro-meteors
G: The natural resources that were available for building were easily accessable in the form of lumber allowing simple expansion.
H: They didn't have to contend with 100 mile wide volcanoes and lethal radiation
I: The journey to the "New World" was measured in months, not years.
J: The trip was relatively low cost per lbs compared to space travel
NONE OF THE ABOVE APPLIES TO A TRIP TO MARS.
I am all for heading to Mars but any comparison to early Earth settlers is about as productive as comparing, just about anything, to Nazis. Thus the IMC is the Martian equavalent to Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
The Godwin Observation: The validity and quality of a discussion can be measured by the length of time it takes to compare something in the conversation to Nazis. Alternatively: The duration of a conversion prior to a reference to Nazis implies it's general quality with the exception of conversations actually pertaining to Nazis.
Gabriel's Law: Internet + Anonimty = Total and complete Fuckwad. Alternatively: Given a forum and anonymity most people act like assholes.
Idgarad's Martian Clause: "If at any point a scientist professes the colonization of Mars, and in the course of that profession, cites early settlers on Earth, has in fact declaired himself a moron." Alternatively: The comparison of space colonization to early american settlers by a scientist invalidates all credibility said scientist once had by ignoring the overwhelming differences between the two.
The Godwin Disclaimer
"I do openly declaire that the conversation at hand does indeed involve Nazis and as such Godwin's Law and The Godwin Observation do not apply."
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Ding, ding, ding! We have a new meme!
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.
If humans screw up the earth to the point where it becomes unlivable, our species deserves to just become extinct.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
"humans must begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against a catastrophe on Earth" For the love of G-d and all that is holy, why must we? If we have the technology to make Mars habitable, then we have the technology to fix Earth. If the Earth goes to hell in a handbasket, would humans living on Mars save your life? Why not spend 1/10th that same energy to fixing this place? If we can't straighten out our own house, what the hell makes us think we could make Mars work out? Such a trip would be nothing more than billions upon billions of dollars, pulled from the taxes of hundreds of millions of people, just to pander to the selfish dreams of a very small number of people. Spend that money on making a light rail system spanning the US, clean energy sources (solar, wind, etc), and you'll have lots left over; and then it helps save this planet, for the benefit of billions of current earthlings, plus all generations to come. Or...spend the money to send a couple dozen people to Mars, so they can...do jack for the rest of us. One key thing to keep in mind - most of the people who went from Europe to the US back in the day either paid their own way, or were sent specifically so they could gather resources to send back. The idea that it was a one-way trip is true only for the people who paid their own way. So if a few billionaires want to get together and send themselves to Mars, I'm not going to stop them. But why the hell should I pay for someone else to go?
Probably the chinese at some time in the future.
Leela: Hang on. Amy Wong? Of the Mars Wongs?
Amy: Look, we're not as rich as everybody says.
Leela: Uh-huh! What sorority do you belong to?
Amy: Kappa Kappa Wong.
Farnsworth: This is quite a large ranch you have.
Mr. Wong: 17.9 billion acres. We own entire western hemisphere. (whispering) That the best hemisphere!
Farnsworth: It's the same on Earth.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Would I go? You bet I would. I'm quite serious. I'd far rather do something incredible and useful with the little time I have left than sit around gardening or playing golf.
I'd still go if I knew there were only enough resources to last me 6 months on Mars, and then I had to quietly pop the little red pill. Trading 6 months doing something completely amazing for 20 (expected) rather boring years going slowly senile seems a pretty good trade to me. I'll bet there are quite a few people like me out there.
Send me, a half dozen inflatable greenhouses, enough plants to eat/breathe from, and some quonset-type buriable shelters. I'll be standing by for any other stuff you'd like done, can get a lot more science done than a rover, and will be happy to have my paycheck handed over to my wife and kids here. Of course, if you end up sending along my wife and kids, and some other folks, I'll plant a flag, declare independence, and do my best to sieze the planet as soon as I'm self-sufficient.
The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are