Will Mars be a One-way Trip? 724
alexj33 writes "Will humans ever really go to Mars? Let's face it, the obstacles are quite daunting. Not only are there numerous, difficult, technical issues to overcome, but the political will and perseverance of any one nation to undertake such an arduous task is huge. However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite possible, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane's proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person."
I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ex-presidents are well paid (Score:4, Funny)
All his speeches are written for him and even then he has trouble with them thar multi-syllable words.
If anyone want to hear what bush had to say they would be better off hiring dick cheney.
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Informative)
Ark #3 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you'd have a ton of volunteers for this, many of them perfectly sane and competent. Everybody dies; but not everybody dies on fricking Mars.
But it will never happen. Manned space exploration is foolish. Robots do a radically better job for a tiny fraction of the price. The only reason we go with humans is the emotional feel-good PR. You need to sell the story to the public, and that doesn't work so well if you're going to kill the guy, no matter how OK he is with that.
The problem isn't the volunteer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you just want scientific data and never want to move mankind in the stars. Then yes, ROBOTS are for you WAL-E!
But many of us, believe that we need to move out.
a) it protects our extinction from a catastrophic cosmic event
b) it alleviates population issues
Say the new world (Americas) were discovered today. Would it be foolish to send people over? Better to just send robots right? Well...only if you want nothing but pictures and soil samples. But if you want to expand, colonize...you send people.
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the population argument is bogus. Increasing wealth and standard of living is strongly correlated with decreasing fertility rates in every culture and nation on earth. Most population projections which include this effect show the earth's population peaking within 100 years, and then declining, and it's unlikely that a significant colonization effort will be underway within 100 years. (Sorry, can't find the population references.)
So, there's Scenario A, in which we all get richer, and the population problem stabilizes, so we can't use it as an argument to go to Mars. There's Scenario B, in which we don't get richer, and consequently can't afford to go to Mars. And of course there's Scenario C, in which a small group becomes very rich while the teeming masses remain poor and continue to reproduce -- in this scenario, the small number of rich people who can go to Mars don't substantially alleviate the population problem, because there aren't very many of them.
There's also a Scenario D, in which a small group of rich people innovate to make trips to Mars affordable for the teeming masses, but I think this is really Scenario A again -- if Mars-going technology is mass-affordable, then many other good things are also mass-affordable, which means that the masses have a high standard of living, which means they already have low fertility, and the population pressure, again, is low. A real Scenario D requires that Mars-going technology be somehow made much more affordable than terrestrial travel, energy, education and birth control, which I would rate as theoretically possible but unlikely.
Personally, I find manned space travel inspiring, but I think it's important to be clear-headed about exactly which problems it does and does not solve.
Re:I'd go. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it would be a one-way trip for two (or more) wouldn't it?
see also: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062827/ [imdb.com]
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:5, Funny)
(I assume that you are typing about medicine; if you are typing about sex, have you not heard of celibacy?
Most people on this forum are, uh, "intimately" familiar with that term.)
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:4, Funny)
Probably pays a chinese kid to karma whore for him during the night too.
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:4, Interesting)
I laughed tho.
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, a fair part of the population on Slashdot these days live in stable relationships and have kids. Me, i've got 3, but I think that's somewhat over-average.
I think it's safe to say that three relationships is a bit above average.
Minor Correction (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Living Alone (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Two? No, one. (Score:5, Insightful)
How does geek would do: make an AI make you feel?
Re:I'd go. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be just like the Mayflower... Only without the natives and smallpox...
Yeah, only problem is, without help from the natives, everyone on the Mayflower would have died within a few years.
I'll make my own interplanetary mission...with hookers, and blackjack.
Re:I'd go. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd go. (Score:4, Funny)
What happens on Mars, stays on Mars.
That's sort of the point with one-way missions.
Re:I'd go. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd go. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather do the Greek Colonies [google.com] one way trip. Send excess population out into space to found colonies that will eventually trade with Mother Earth.
Colonies might be easier on Earth, but the principle is the same. We just have higher start up costs and planning for space.
I could easily see China doing this. The red planet might be Red.
Firefly will probably turn out right...Mandarin and English will be the spoken languages in space.
Also, I'm all for doing The Moon is a Harsh Mistress [wikipedia.org] i.e. sending prisoners out into space. Prisoners are usually are risk takers. I can think of nothing more rewarding and risky than founding new colonies in the long term.
Re:I mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
I take it you don't live in LA then?
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I mean... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Informative)
FUD? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of those, only the escape velocity is actually relevant. The gravity at the surface is pretty much irrelevant. The escape velocity on Mars is twice that of the moon, which means it would take 4 times as much energy to leave Mars as it takes to leave the moon. That's in theory. In practise, it's more than that because you actually need more fuel to lift the extra fuel.
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends on how many different ships there are. It'd be kinda silly to use the same ship to go from the surface of Mars directly to Earth. A scenario that makes more sense is this:
1. Ship to get to Earth orbit from the surface
2. Ship to get from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and back
3. Ship to get from Mars orbit to Mars surface and
4. Either a separate Mars surface to Mars orbit ship or the same orbit to surface ship from above
That way you get to take advantage of more efficient ion engines (or something similar) on the long haul from Earth to Mars and back. Ion engines are efficient, but the acceleration is too low to get to orbit with them.
Catch the shuttle to mars (Score:5, Interesting)
It is tempting to scale up the Apollo program when looking at Mars. However, the concept of a single multistage rocket is perhaps not the way to go.
If Mars goes around the sun in about 2 earth years, then there is an elliptical orbit that is tangential to mars and earth that will represent the minimum energy routes to Mars. The trip would take somewhere between half an earth year and half a Martian year - let's say about 8-10 months. You could get to Mars faster if you kept your foot to the floor, but that would waste a lot of fuel. So - this route is not far from the optimum route you might take even if you had ion engines, provided our two planets were in the right place.
The craft has got to be big. It has to have room enough to live in for a year or so, with backup. You could strap some enormous chemical rocket that was shipped into space. However, suppose you launched the thing without anyone inside. It can sit in space for years. It could be slowly be raised in orbit using earth-moon tidal forces with ion engine pumping, and a final slinghot. Having escaped the earth-moon system it could slowly accelerate using ion engines or solar sails to get towards Mars. It would take a quick slingshot or aerobrake around Mars and head back towards Earth. If it is in the right orbit, it could get back to Earth without any propulsion, and have enough velocity to get back to Mars' orbit again. Now it is going nice and fast, our passengeers can get on. This time, we are not accelerating the whole living environment, but just the people and their hand luggage to get them to the rendevous, and a conventional rocket might do for that.
Once we have got this far, we then have a big, habitable volume going between Earth's orbit and Mars' orbit. With a bit of fine tuning, we can probably arrange for it to pas Mars and Earth again. This means if we can generate fuel on Mars for a lifting body to get people to rendevous with the big craft, then going back is not only possible, it is almost free, particularly if you are taking a relief crew out.
Do you remember the bit in "The Right Stuff" where someone proposed and volunteered to go to the moon in the hope that they could be resupplied until a vehicle for the return journey could be built? They didn't do it then. I guess we won't do it now. It is interesting to wonder why we would go through huge expense to return one person when we have so many, and the same money would save more lives in other ways. However, we won't do it if we don't have to, and I don't think we do.
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon - comparing flying a single person to Mars with no chance of coming back is like Lindburgh flying to Paris??? Is he saying that Mars is populated with (to quote the Simpsons) cheese-eating surrender monkeys? Or maybe he's suggesting that upon arriving at Mars, the astronaut will have an unlimited supply of hot women and baguettes?
And the whole 'constant communication' - umm.. last time I checked, Mars was between 3 and 21 light-minutes from Earth.. that means you say something, and get a response in a half-hour later.. yeah, that's really constant. It would be more like a video postcard than a conversation.
This article is *really* poorly thought out.
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I mean... (Score:4, Informative)
The slashdotted article has a few details not in the summary, including:
So it's more of an advanced scout mission, though the chance of returning is very low
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Round-trip tickets are only useful for tourists, and the real reason to go to Mars is to colonize it, not to take some snapshots and then go home again. We are doing that already with robots, so there's really no point in doing it with people.
The interesting idea here is not the one-way thing, but the one-man, one-way thing. The author is right, it's initially kind of a shocking proposal, but when you stop to think about it, we're just a bunch of wusses. Our ancestors did this kind of risky one-way shit as a matter of course. (Think of how the Polynesians colonized the entire Pacific in simple canoes.) There shouldn't be anything shocking about it at all. We're just not worthy. Some other culture will do this, and we'll talk about how barbaric they are for trading so callously in the lives of their astronauts. But I guarantee the astronauts will go willingly, and while we tut-tut their backward ways and high mortality rate, they'll be conquering Mars.
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lucky we don't do anything barbaric or callous with the lives of our young people, like sending them to Iraq or something. So we might kill one cosmonaut or astronaut. Big deal. We kill hundreds of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, it doesn't even make the news headlines any more.
Mars is a much shorter trip than Magellan's (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars could already be a shorter trip (each way) - that we know MUCH more about, and have more ability to deploy resources for - than Magellan's was, just as an example.
But, I have two opposing points:
2. Think of the robots. Basically, we have robots now, which simply are better for this kind of exploring. So we don't need a human there to EXPLORE Mars (or the moon.) Obviously the current rovers are massively, massively cheaper than a manned mission... and I think we could get more done with hundreds of rovers than some dude. a) For any given cost, the robots will probably do the exploring better. In other words, I think we should send a person to Mars when it's economically profitable to send a _person_ there compared to the robots. We just don't NEED some guy to go there anymore.
b) I think the cost involved in a human mission would be tremendous if the gain is largely symbolic. You don't go there just to touch it, you go there to find out a lot more about all sorts of things you didn't know.
c) So the other reason to go there is to _colonize_ to really expand the scope of human life to a new place.
c) in my opinion involves either: i) generate resources FROM Mars instead of spending a ton to be there or to ii) have a sufficient breeding population of humanity off earth that we'll survive a colossal extinction event. I believe i) will come before ii) AND I think i) is more likely to be done by remote control, too... or at least most of it. So wait for a NEED for a person - which personally I feel like will be a long time coming; the robots will get better faster than our ability to cheaply get a person there So maybe the first person will be a paying tourist.
3. While I think Mars is close enough to be within reach, there are things we've skipped. I think all of the above applies to the moon, but I think it's so significantly cheaper to send stuff to the moon than to Mars. We're just finally going to put a telescope on the moon... For that matter, I think we should have orbiting solar power pretty soon.
We only have like 3 people living outside our atmosphere. I think that's shameful in some ways... but there's no reason we need to "touch" Mars with a real person before we have commercial occupation of something closer / cheaper* - the technology we need for that to be sustainable - longer term, more sustainable, cheaper inhabiting of harsh environments - is something we can demonstrate much closer.
*unless it turns out a person on Mars would help us mine something ridiculously expensive, or something. But a cluster of robots could have a higher chance of finding that for less money.
I'd certainly accept that having the nice thin unbreathable atmosphere there might involve some cost savings in radiation damage/shielding, pressurization, etc. But that's only a justification if those costs are going to outweigh the much-higher lift costs and the much-lower chance of a bail-out.
The good news is we're getting there - commercial boost to space is becoming practical, commercial space tourism is growing, and that means soonish a space hotel could be a reality - and as costs drop, hopefully attendance will increase. And by all means explore Mars extensively before we're ready to go there... just don't waste a ton of money on symbolism; spend that money wisely.
Re:Mars is a much shorter trip than Magellan's (Score:5, Funny)
2. Think of the robots.
Please, won't somebody?!
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if another culture will do it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do it as a return trip.
Other propulsions systems could make a round trip feasible by allowing solar powered launch. A culture that believes big, loud, exciting rockets are the only way to lift things into orbit, that will not commit any funding to alternative designs which work in computer simulations and have been around since the late nineteen eighties while supporting development of further rocket technology, that culture will fail to go much beyond the moon return.
To take the canoe example, do you think the Polynesians powered their canoes by facing backward and throwing shit overboard?
Survivor: Mars (Score:4, Funny)
For immunity contests you could have:
A Mt. Olympus climb,
Resource prospecting activities,
Water ice collection trips,
Locking down solar panels, antennas, and other breakables before dust storms,
Environment leak repair due to a puncture from a sandstorm.
The winner gets *$10 million*!
If there are hidden hostile intelligent martians, then you just keep the contestants around for a second season called "Lost: Mars"
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending time talking about how the old guys had the right stuff and spirit will carry them through and make the difference is just ya-ya silliness in place of real thought. That is the same kind of thinking that convinced the French that light artillery was just the ticket to face the German threat. The French assumed (naturally) that their soldiers could and would overcome any burden with their miraculous Esprit. Worked really well for them.
Real "problems" have real solutions based in the real world. I disagree completely about the Right Stuff fluff, but in any case, today's astronauts are the ones you have. Deal.
There is a very real difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there are wars where "hundreds" of casualties are seen as terrible. Of course for the individuals they are, but in previous conflicts you could lose thousands in a single battle, and if you made ground it was seen as a success.
Re:There is a very real difference (Score:5, Insightful)
The other kind of wars, like the recent ones in Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo, where Western soldiers could die are where the public interest would actually last longer than one news show. That's because this kind of war is also fought for entirely different motives than those before: it's not about crushing your opponent, it's not about gaining territory. Sometimes nobody really knows what it's all about (like the last Iraq war). And that's where people at home actually care for the soldiers over there - and not for any other soldiers, but for their own. How many Iraqi soldiers left their life during the invasion? Do you know? Do you care? IIRC it was about a thousand more than lost their lives on September 11th 2001 in the Twin Towers. But somehow - even here in Europe - it seems that the only body count that's getting mentioned on mainstream news is the American one (I may be a bit wrong on that since I generally don't follow mainstream media...)
Re:I mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me you don't work in health care.
Redundancy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Peter
Re:Redundancy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody else seems to be reading between the lines here. The person who accepts this mission is going to Mars to die. Whatever happens.
We normally pick young, fit astronauts with their whole lives ahead of them. This proposed mission is philosophically profound and does have the potential to unite the world in a way that the original Moon landing did. The suggestion is a piece of genius!
Getting to Mars is very difficult, but a return mission is bordering on impossible right now. So we pick a mature (read old), experienced astronaut who may be facing their last years and send them on the last and ultimate journey of a lifetime. The symbolism is not pointless, it is a statement of human fragility and mortality combined with enormous potential and sacrifice.
If the first (and possibly last) man on Mars isn't top TV ratings I don't know what would be.
Resonances of the Martian Chronicals here.
Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Kennedy said it best, so I'll let his words speak for me:
Unless I'm misreading those words, sending a man to the moon in the sixties wasn't easy either, but we still managed to do it and bring everyone back safely. Sending a man or woman on a one-way mission to Mars in this century strikes me as a failure compared to Project Apollo's goals. I can't imagine any politician seriously supporting the plan. The mere idea of televising the journey seems barbaric to me. A one-way trip to Mars is clearly a death sentence to any astronaut willing to make the trip -- televising it feels like a particularly horrid version of reality TV, with a murder/suicide as the gruesome series finale. If that's our bold plan for the conquest of space in 2008, I'd feel better if we just stayed on Earth.
Re:Redundancy? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality of large Mars missions is that the human is only along for the ride, sort of like a color commentator, to help snare the public's imagination and more funding.
In other words, even one human is already redundant. After all, what can go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong go I'm sorry Dave.
Re:Redundancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. If the mars mission is actually doing useful work, then having people physically there will make the work much more efficient. Humans on mars can make decisions in real time. The latency of radio signals makes trying to do anything significant remotely really obnoxious.
Re:Redundancy? (Score:4, Insightful)
The astronauts on the moon were able to scoot around like crazy on the rovers. Being there and operating something in real time would be a huge benefit to research of any kind. Instead of sending the command to have a camera pan around to decide where to go next, waiting the 20 minutes or so for it to get there, waiting another 20 or so minutes for the video feed to even start arriving, and you see the issue. A human could just look around and hit the gas pedal. Yeah - that rock over there looks interesting.
A few very complicating points... (Score:4, Interesting)
Living alone:
- Biosphere 2 was huge, and *on earth.* It failed. The guy would need a *lot* of support from earth. If it doesn't come during the launch window, fatal results. Come to think of it, almost every adverse scenario results in certain death.
- We have not even done this on the moon yet. Shouldn't this be tried first? Almost all of the mars mission proposals I've seen require a moon base.
Waste: Lots of it. This guy is not going to live in a self-sufficient environment (Biosphere argument) and thus will leave a lot of mars-debris all around. I guess this is minor and some would argue inevitable, but he is going to colonize the whole planet with his own waste products of all sorts.
A thought question: Will a mars mission not irreversibly contaminate Mars? I have often thought about the moon - it used to be sterile, but now there is human / earth bacteria everywhere around the landing sites. NASA does not sterilize probes it sends. What's that? Bacteria can't survive? Actually, they probably can - many species are capable of withstanding cosmic rays and zero atmosphere, etc.
Cue the "I nominate Mitch Bainwol" comments...
Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Funny)
Or just send someone we don't care so much about. Perhaps someone whose name starts with 'D' and ends with 'arl McBride'?
Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Insightful)
The colony on Mars, on the other hand, needs only to be self-sustainable. This means that they can skip all the "pollinate with bees" crap and concentrate on producing O2 and food via artificial means.
As for moon base, given the nature of the moon- ie radiation, micro meteor, lack of atmosphere, etc. I would say that while a moon base is easier to do in the short run, a Mars base has a much better chance of being sustainable.
As for contamination- don't be silly, of course we have contaminated Mars. The question is, in what ways?
Terraforming (Score:3)
Re:A few very complicating points... (Score:5, Funny)
Sterile probes? (Score:5, Informative)
> Yes, they do.
No, they don't. Please read up on what "sterilize" means and stop spreading misinformation.
Oh, heck, you probably would have done it by now if you were going to.
Sterilize = kill ALL bacteria. You can put something that has been sterilized in your bloodstream and not get direct infection or exposure to bacteria.
Sanitize = kill bacterial to a certain threshold or standard, or kill harmful bacteria. You can lick something that has been sanitized and probably not get sick. However, if you cultured that hospital toilet seat, you can be sure you'd get bacteria.
Bioload reduction = "We're pretty much sure that it is not covered in stool or loads of harmful bacteria, but beyond that can't say."
It is almost impossible to build something the size of Mars rovers and have it be STERILE. Anything exposed to general atmosphere for over 20 seconds or so is no longer sterile. Even in the O.R. (which has special filters and a non-recirculating atmosphere) things exposed to the air for prolonged period are considered unsterile. If any of you guys worked in a bio lab, open up a can of L.B. broth, and walk away. After 20 minutes, recap it. What happens?
I really appreciate whoever sent me the planetary protection link, and it confirmed what I thought. We are *very* concerned about bringing foreign / alien bacteria here, but it is just about impossible to keep us from spreading our own throughout the universe.
At least two? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At least two? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At least two? (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia cites anthropologist John H. Moore [wikipedia.org] as saying the minimum reasonable size is around 170. I'm assuming these individuals would be measurably unrelated.
So instead of meditating on a mountain... (Score:3, Interesting)
Candidates (Score:5, Funny)
Why stop at one? (Score:4, Funny)
A great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmmn, where have I heard that before [wikipedia.org]...
THink of the publicity (Score:4, Interesting)
No man left behind!
Now, this is the plan. (Score:5, Funny)
Unify what world? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, as long as you're talking about Mars, and that's just because there'd only be one guy there. Back here on Earth, everyone would go on fucking and fighting the way they always have, though a few might pause to watch some of the news coverage.
Unifying this world would take an alien invasion, and that would last just long enough for us to start losing badly against their superior technology, after which there would be an awe-inspiring race to stab each other in the back to curry favor with our new alien overlords. Face it, there's only so much you can do with a bunch of aggressive, paranoid primates no matter how smart they are.
One-way trip? Sure! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One-way trip? Sure! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One-way trip? Sure! (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist. =p I'm not sure I could do it, but I agree with your reasoning.
Re:One-way trip? Sure! (Score:4, Insightful)
Memory is a funny thing. Can you name the English settlers who died in 1587 attempting to settle in what is modern day Virginia? Can you even named the original settlement, aside from its name "The Lost Colony"?
My bigger gripe is people who say the 9/11 will always be remembered... and then can't name the day Pearl Harbor occurred (December 7, 1941). Yeah... memories are very generational.
Lindbergh (Score:5, Informative)
That's why he flew alone: it's not that hard to stay awake for 36 hours, and so he saw a co-pilot as unnecessary extra weight.
Ironically, he got lucky and didn't drift off course as much as he assumed he would, arriving at Paris with enough leftover fuel to continue to Rome. But he designed his plane on the assumption that he would not be lucky. He was a safety-first guy, that's why he succeeded where others failed. It ridiculous to associate him with this insane proposal.
I, for one, (Score:4, Interesting)
(fyi: link
I agree; I volunteer you. (Score:5, Interesting)
This will not be a suicide mission. The ppl that go first, will be thought of like Leif Erickson, or Christopher Columbus (ignoring all the down sides on him). Even if my life were cut down to another 10 years, it makes the life worth living. I am amazed at the complete lack of balls on these postings. Our society has become WAY too soft. We no longer seem to put pride on our accomplishment, only on what we accumulate. That is a real sad state of affairs for the west and shows me a lot about us.
I am truly glad that you have the balls and the foresight to see this for what it is; a chance to change the future. Hell, you would do more for earth than bill gates has.
Red Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite right (Score:5, Interesting)
- Nukes is about our best bet. Sadly, ppl fight that. But the Japaneses system that is designed to support 10-100 MW would be ideal (20 MW, for 30+ years).
- Solar being beamed. A simple power sat above that beams down the energy. Probably not a bad way to disribute power around the planet, but I would not want to depend on it.
- Geo-thermal. There is some very good indication that there is heat close to the surface in several areas. That could change everything. Provide clean power and heat. I would still prefer the above as well.
Once we have energy there, it is easy to have robots build. Even a remote control arm can work at burying several Bigelow systems. Once buried AND a garden is started for food, then we are good to go. There is no doubt that many ppl would volunteer. I know that If I were younger, I would.BTW, one weird idea would be to send a bunch of women and have them serve as incubators. In particular, if we send several missions of women AND zygotes, then we can grow a colony there. It may be a lot cheap approach to guarantee bio-diversity. In fact, I would think that once we have several small groups there, that we should send not just human zygotes, but also seeds and a number of animal zygotes. it would be useful for just in case.
Animal zygotes? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I'd volunteer if the one-way mission is a reality. I don't find it necessary to live among other humans in close distance. And once on Mars, I won't do shit. What, are they gonna fire me?
Werner von Braun's plan (Score:5, Informative)
Werner von Braun's plan for going to Mars was published in the 1950s. It's worth reviewing it.
Ah, the good old days of industrial production. If China does a Mars program, it might look like that.
Orion spaceships, wimps! (Score:5, Informative)
What's an Orion?
Glad you asked: Orion Spacecraft Rule [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear pulse propulsion behind giant push-plates on springs, man! With a payload measured by the tonne rather than the kilo!
The real justification (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone dies, why not doing the extraordinary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without resupply and a likely limited lifespan (say two years) I would do it.
Face it, most of us will lead mundane 9 to 5 insignificant lives and will likely die a forgotten death lingering in a hospital bed. Why wouldn't you trade that for a chance to blaze a completely new trail for humanity, to truly go, where no one has gone before.
I am sure there are a lot of scientist who trade the rest of their life for 2 years studying Mars in person.
Besides that, he is talking about sending company, resupply etc.
On top of that, this would be a volunteer mission. I don't quite get the nervous nellies who have a problem with someone else making this choice. It might not be for them, but they should at least be able to realize that for some this is an inspirational idea.
I just can't believe the amount hand wringing over this.
Though I think it is immediately clear that this will never be done because of the tender sensibilities of the public. If even the slashdot crowd are getting bent out of shape, the general public would frothing at the mouth.
We seem to be becoming a world of spineless weepy nannies.
Re:Missing item ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing item ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing item ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because sending a corpse to Mars would be a huge waste of payload on an un-manned mission. Outside of science fiction, we can't freeze people and revive them.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
See, instead of everyone looking at their navel, people will start raising their head and will start looking at the stars. Instead of having most people working for their own goals, people will start to share a dream. Instead of fighting each other, people will start to work as a team.
I'm currently working in the field of psychology and even though I'm not high on the ladder, the calls I receive are about couples breaking up and people complaining of surviving instead of living. A lot of people are living without knowing what to do with their life and this is the kind of goal that might bring people together and give them something to do with their life even if in the grand scheme of things it is useless.
Also, about the benefits, you can't go wrong with studying how to negate the effects of loneliness which apparently affects tons of people that live in cities. Also you get to fight back bone problems that are not that different from the problems aging people have. Of course, you also get the technologies for space travel but you don't care for that that much.
So is it worth it ? I say sure, why not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical Slashdot misses the point (Score:5, Interesting)