One-Way Ticket to Mars? 1242
ahogue writes "Paul Davies, who has written several very accessible books on physics and cosmology, proposes an interesting way to get a manned mission to Mars - leave them there. [NYTimes, free reg. req.] While it may sounds shocking at first, the financial and exploratory benefits seem to outweigh the social negatives. Any volunteers?" Reader docanime writes with some sober news: "All this recent talk about Mars rovers and orbiters has made one space fan checking out how well Mars has been deflecting and destroying the space probes. The Mars Scorecard lists all the known fly-by, orbital, and landing attempts/failures made by humans. In case you're curious, Mars is winning 20 to 16."
Parts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Parts (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Parts (Score:5, Funny)
Registration Free Link (Score:5, Informative)
Freeze them! (Score:5, Interesting)
The astronauts freeze themselves "before they die".
It works like this: we send them with no ability to return but with the (mythical) cryogenic equipment to freeze themselves pre "death".
The poles are pretty cold it would take less energy there.
They and their families can at least cling to the hope that one day we'll return with the technology to bring them home and revive them.
Re:Freeze them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freeze them! (Score:5, Insightful)
To decide that since we aren't quite ready to send someone to Mars and then bring them back home we will instead just do what we can at the moment and send someone to die on Mars is idiotic in the extreme.
We aren't ready to go to Mars yet. It's as simple as that. We will eventually be ready to make an attempt at it and then it will be the thing to do. Right now it's nothing more than another President saying something to try and get some good reviews in a History book.
Since the end of the space race every President has been trying to be John F Kennedy when it comes to space. Carter got to be the Space Shuttle guy, Reagan had his "Space Station Freedom" thing.
Re:Freeze them! (Score:5, Interesting)
For something this big, you can find highly qualified volunteers who will compete for the mission. The article even mentions the popularity of extreme sports that are very risky by nature, and that people of this type would be more than happy to sign up.
Re:No, YOU aren't read y to go to Mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Like what, exactly? I love science -- I ought to, I'm a scientist at a genomics center. But the whole trend of even Earth-bound science is to do as much as possible by machine, and just have the humans look at the *data*. People don't sequence by hand any more -- there are automated sequencing machines. So the whole idea of manned spaceflight just looks anachronistic to me -- something out of the 19th century age of gentlemen explorers. As far as science is concerned, robots in space are far more useful than people. They just make less exciting TV.
Re:Freeze them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Find the people who have the skills, brains, and talent to actually do this and you're going to find a bunch of people who are smart enough not to want to go until there's some real benefit and the plan is sound.
The people talking in here are just sounding off with no real expectation of it happening. It's heroism with a condom on. No real danger, no real possibility of danger.
Re:Freeze them! (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that this idea (that sacrifice is sometimes needed) can be abused by the small minded and the power hungry lies in it's truth, not its falsehood.
That being said, I would sign myself up and my wife would sign up for this mission too.
-jbs
Re:Parts (Score:5, Funny)
"This is one small step for man..."
Re:Parts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Parts (Score:5, Funny)
Oh sure, and play right into the Martians hands!? Lazy Martians, can't even come to Earth and collect body parts, now we've got people volunteering to send them up to Mars for them! Sheesh!
one way ticket to mars (Score:3, Funny)
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:5, Funny)
Or at least just make him *think* he had went.
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:4, Funny)
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:4, Funny)
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like a good plan, at least as good as the plan to colonize America in the early to mid 1600s - 1700s. Then again, didn't the first few groups of settlers die? I might go, but not on the first go-around.
dead (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, they all died. Have you ever met one of them? Of course not, becayse all the settlers died a few centuries ago.
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, that would be very bad. He'd come back as an evil superhero. Yeesh, haven't we learned anything from the movies [imdb.com]
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:one way ticket to mars (Score:5, Funny)
Registration Free Link (Score:5, Informative)
"Mars needs men!" (Score:5, Funny)
A few days after landing...
"Mars needs women!"
Re:"Mars needs men!" (Score:5, Funny)
"Mars needs diapers!"
Re:"Mars needs men!" (Score:5, Funny)
If you didn't think of this until after arriving on Mars, you've been sitting in the basement reading
Why do a manned mission? (Score:4, Insightful)
- the financial and exploratory benefits seem to outweigh the social negatives
What are the social and exploratory benefits of a manned mission? How do they outweigh the costs?While I'm a big fan of robotic probes to Mars and elsewhere, I have never seen a compelling economic argument for manned exploration of Mars, at least in the short and medium term.
The argument for seems to be based entirely on the assumption that we need to colonize Mars as quickly as possible and this is a first step. But why do we need to colonize Mars as quickly as possible? Until we've exhausted what we can learn from unmanned probes, why send manned missions at all?
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we can?
We should go to Mars just because we can. Not because it might make economic sense or serve some social/exploratory benefits.
We (not just the USA but the world) should do it just because we can.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two answers (Score:5, Insightful)
First, look at all the crap (in addition to Tang) that was developed as a direct result of the space program and the incredible challenges that have been overcome in the process, including computers, etc. Technology spending returns well on investment. Spending on technology research advances mankind.
That said, what is an example of something that will more directly affect mankind? I presume not bandaid solutions for problems? Because the return on investment there is 0.
Admittedly, I'd at least turn the American public school system into something functional before going back to the moon, which we already did 35 freaking years ago.
But outside of that, I see space exploration as being a problem so difficult that it acts as a spur to develop innovative, useful solutions. It also is a goal with so many inherent problems that it requires a diversity of engineering solutions - unlike a particle accelerator, which while expensive, doesn't require innovative engineering to accomplish, and only advances one kind of basic science. Not to say that's not cool, but I think space exploration ends up being more useful to all of us.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. First of all, why do you think we went to the moon? Just because we could? Wrong. We went because space was the next frontier of the Cold War.
We went into orbit because we didn't want the Russians to be the only ones up there, free to put up orbiting nuclear launch platforms. We went to the moon because we didn't want to lose prestige if the Russians got there first. (And possibly there was some worry about the Russians setting up a base with nuclear missiles up there too. Except they never got a man on the moon anyhow.)
Once we had gotten there, nobody cared. Apollo 13 would have been the third landing, and the media had already lost interest in space launches by then.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, why did the Russians go? Why did it even occur to us to go in the first place. For all the intelligent people here, I'm amazes at the complete lack of understanding of the scientific progress.
We (as in scientests) went to space, as we do ALL science, because we can. To get funding we might give other reasons, but what drives the scientests and engineers is the challenge, and possibility of understanding more about the universe and ourselves. Who cares it's usefull right now? Who cares if it might not work? Who cares what the politicians think?
From the scientest's point of view, the rest of the world is here to support me. We have all this government and industry so that the equipment I need is available, and the conditions are amenable to research.
The question of why to go to mars is the same as why we are here as a race. Do we have a purpose, and what might it be? If our future is to sit around in this little rock and argue with eachother for the next few million years, that's fine, but I sure as hell am going to do everything I can to change that.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of why to go to mars is the same as why we are here as a race. Do we have a purpose, and what might it be? If our future is to sit around in this little rock and argue with eachother for the next few million years, that's fine, but I sure as hell am going to do everything I can to change that.
Wish I had points to mod you up.
I think many people also fail to realize that many social problems are incrementally improved by advances in how we, as a society and race, view and understand our role in the universe.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we should, of course, base all of our decisions on what the media considers interesting.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Interesting)
As we do not know how long it will take, today is not too early to begin.
Benefits are for the future.
Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Politics (Score:5, Funny)
Which most likely can't cook or do dishes either... maybe not such a bad idea after all.
Re:Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus all humanity is stuck on one planet. That's bad! There are numerous things which could wipe out the entire race. But put humans on other worlds, and you begin to ensure the race has a future.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Funny)
What would we call it? I dunno...the acronym for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive Planets" probably won't go over very well.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Interesting)
What does this have to do with money? Humans are naturally curious. We're explorers. That's what we do. I'll tell you something else, it wouldn't take a man a week to move off the lander. A guy in a suit would have already picked up half those rocks, drilled 30 feet into the crust, and sifted for gold. No robot yet built can outdo a dude in a suit.
New World wasn't found due to curiousity (Score:5, Interesting)
Some might say robots can do it for less. They would be partially right. Robots have a ways to go before they can move over and observe unfamiliar terrain as well as a trained human. One of the painful lessons JPL learned when they sent a prototype rover out to look for life was it missed a plant because the plant was just outside the rover's field of view.
One technique we used back in the 1800's was to give away land to whomever would go West. 160 acres to anyone who would build a house and occupy it. The Union Pacific and Central Pacific were driven by greed to build the transcontinental railroad. They not only got government backed financing, they also got land and anything on it. So while the Union is fighting the Civil War, it's also driving the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad. The Union could do both because the railroad didn't cost the Union anything. The land had zero value because no one was there and the bonds got paid off by the railroads. California gold and free land were a huge incentive to risk your life crossing the Humboldt sink or Death Valley to look for that perfect piece of land to call home. Seems to me that if a nation made a similar offer of lunar soil and financing, we'd see a lot more activity than we have to date. We won't know what's of value on the Moon and on Mars until people have poked it all over.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:4, Informative)
the reason it was used is because it reduces the variables of an automatic landing. you can test drop something from 150 feet off the ground all day, but you cant test a landing by a computer program using retro rockets.
in a manned mission, the landing would be by parachute with retro rockets to slow acceleration to 0 on the surface, because the trained pilot has that ability.
currently, programs don't have that ability, so they didn't do it.
-jeff
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Funny)
Just a guess
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at one point in our world's history, there were a lot of people who simply couldn't comprehend why anybody would want to throw their life away by sailing off the edge of the planet. There wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with Europe that necessitated grand exploration, and most of the people leading these expeditions could have enjoyed a very comfortable life had they desired to do so. In short, the biggest thing driving the exploration was sheer curiosity (paired with the hope that these explorers might be able to find easier routes to places like the East Indies and cash in on them--a sort of Renaissance explorer's lottery.)
Looking back, I'm quite glad they went ahead and did it, anyways. Without said exploration, me and several billion of my closest friends wouldn't have the life we have today. Say whatever you will about the ills American society has introduced to this planet, say whatever you will about how royally we're fucking things up in our adolescent pursuit of global hegemony--fact is, America has done a lot to advance global prosperity, human rights, and quality of life. Had the explorers and pioneers of old not taken the (sometimes overwhelming) risks they took, we would be far less advanced, as a planet, than we are today.
Look forward. Know that you, your children, your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren will never, ever, ever live to see the day when there is a self-sustaining colony on the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. Know, too, that the sooner we start accepting the risks inherent with exploration, the sooner we'll be able to achieve the advances that come with such momentous human achievements.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never seen a compelling argument that economic benefit was the only valid reason to do something. Do you have a hobby, or any goals other than "make money"? Getting money is only a means to whatever end you ultimately want - so many successful people seem to forget that.
Re:Why do a manned mission? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, humans can do many more experients and studies than robots. If our rover gets stuck, that's all folks. A colony there with the proper manufactoring facilities could potentially do many interesting things, many which couldn't even be conceived at this point.
IMHO, that's the main reason. Sending such a mission would enhance our technology in ways most of us can't even contemplate at the moment. We would have to come up with novel solutions to new problems, and those solutions would undoubtably have applications here on Earth. For example, say the colonists devised a new way to grow crops, or NASA had to design an ultra-safe reactor for the colony. Both of these could have major impact on our civilization. The myrid technologies that would be needed for this to be a reality could greatly enhance the worldwide standard of living.
Finally, I personally feel we should go because we are, at least in America, by tradition frontiersmen without a frontier. Many of us feel a restlessness because there are few places left to go...no more western frontier where we can "make our own". Now, this still wouldn't probably happen in my lifetime (nor probably even in my grandchildrens)...but I would be content with the knowledge that someday one of my decendents could leave this overcrowded place and begin anew in the Martian Colonies.
It's called hope for the future. It's something many of us have lost due to the Patriot Act I & II, our "jobless recovery", our world's biggest prision population, and so on. It's the potential to someday be able to leave if we feel the need. Not me, of course, but someday.
I'm starting a collection. (Score:5, Funny)
A good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
It also seems likely that at some point national governments and/or private companies will clash over the right to exploit a given mineral deposit. Finally, the geosynchronous orbit is already crowded with satellites, and other orbits with unique characteristics may become scarce in the future.
The institution of real property is the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resource of location value. Space habitats, for example, will be very expensive and will probably require financing from private as well as public sources. Selling property rights for living or business space on the habitat would be one way of obtaining private financing. Private law condominiums would seem to be a particularly apt financing model -- inhabitants could hold title to their living space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance of common areas.
Re:A good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that nothing would spur settlement like property rights. Once a US mission landed on Mars, China, Russia and the EU would be falling over themselves to get their own stake. But, I don't know how it would work in the beginning.
The colonial model is the most logical: the US owns whatever part of Mars it's settlers are living on. But, how long does the US own the land? At what point does it revert to the settlers? At what point does the Mars-US relationship become like the American Colonies vs. the British Empire?
It probably shouldn't be based on a strict timeline, but rather a series of developement steps. Once the Mars colony is reasonably self-sufficent (and the US has made a return on it's investment?) the land would become privately held.
Just thinking out loud. There's probably an essay somewhere on the internet that works out these details...
Mars is NOT winning (Score:5, Informative)
Mars may be up against the world as a whole, but by my count, the US has been kicking some Martian tail.
The US leads Mars 10-5.
The USSR is trailing Mars 5-16
Japan trails Mars 0-1
And the ESA is up on Mars 1-0
Shouldn't the ESA be 0-0-1 (Score:4, Informative)
Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it would be wise to bet such a multi-ten-billion mission on a whacko like that.
Re:Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry dude, still think such individual(s) has issues.
Re:Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, the idea strikes me as a good one. Not only does it dramaticly cut the costs of the trip, but it leaves a long term commitment to space travel.
Re:Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it would be wise to bet such a multi-ten-billion mission on a whacko like that.
Hmm. soldiers? Vietnam? WWII? Iraq?
What do you think these WWI guys thought when they heard about machine guns?
Re:Would you want such a volunteer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people spend their lives in near-isolation devoted to research, or risk their lives as test pilots to advance aeronautical knowledge and experience an incredible thr
Emotional Horror (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Emotional Horror (Score:3, Insightful)
A person in that situation has nothing to lo
I've thought about this (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I doubt that the desire to have someone walk on Mars is going to be the magical trick that makes fusion a viable energy source. We need more general science, not just a space program.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Indeed! (Score:4, Informative)
The same way they returned from the moon...Mars is smaller than and has less atmosphere than the Earth. Lift off for the return trip takes much less energy.
I volunteer... (Score:3, Funny)
Then the rest of us can get back to living again.
Procreation! (Score:5, Funny)
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
It's called settlement (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for crying out loud (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a new idea (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/ rtr/ma26.html [marsinstitute.info]
-Josh
No realistic chance of return (Score:3, Interesting)
As the article outlines, the living conditions are likely to be incredibly demanding. The environment on Mars is so harsh that there will also be a constant risk of death due to equipment failure or mistake. If any sort of medical problem develops (broken bones, organ problems, etc.) there is no large medical infrastructure to use, so odds of recovery are diminished. Additionally, the radiation exposure on Mars is almost certainly going to be h
Robert Zubrin's "The case for Mars" (Score:3, Interesting)
not NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
Would NASA entertain a one-way policy for human Mars exploration? Probably not. But other, more adventurous space agencies in Europe or Asia might.
Most of asia has a culture where the individual is seen as part of the whole society, and measured by its contribution to same.
China would certainly have no shortage of volunteers, and no PR problems with such a mission. Neither would Japan.
One-way missions will NEVER HAPPEN. Here's why: (Score:4, Insightful)
But what happens when these people get on Mars? Then what? What if, after a few weeks, the video/radio transmissions back to Mission Control are:
"OH GOD PLEASE GET ME OUT OF HERE! PLEASE I'LL DO ANYTHING! PLEASE I DON'T WANT TO DIE ON THIS PLANET!"
Imagine how horrifying that would be to everyone involved? It would be like watching a person who was condemned to die and fighting [daytondailynews.com]it at the last minute. No matter how justified it is, I think don't think there is anything that can prepare you for someone struggling to live and begging for their lives. Imagine the outrage that people on Earth would feel when the media shows a clip of this astronaut pleading for his life? It would go down as one of the darkest days of humanity.
I mean, they can't just shut off the radio and ignore the person.
The humane aspect of sending a person on a one-way death mission is the aspect that the author has completely and utterly ignored. It's easy to forget that right now, but when death is about to happen, everyone will be thinking, "Dear Lord, what have we done? How could we have done this?" and we as a species will regret the entire thing.
So, we don't send pussies (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it's also up to us to make sure it doesn't come to that. I'd want to design the mission so that even when stuff goes wrong, there's always a good fighting chance for the people on the surface. I wouldn't send people there with one oxygen generator or one inflatible crop dome or without some construction gear or anything.
I mean, Mars isn't the moon. There are resources and things to work with all over the place -- the ground, the atmosphere, etc. And compared to space or the moon, it's a really safe place to be.
Send construction gear. Send machine tools. With some basic gear, plenty of power and know-how, you can make all sorts of things on Mars -- shelters, oxygen, water, food, wire, plastics...
Give me 50 skilled people, a dependable nuclear reactor and enough gear to get started and I'll make Mars a safe place for human life inside of a decade. If something breaks, I'll fix it. If we run out of spare parts, we'll mill new ones. If a few of us die, well, we'll mourn them and move on.
Leave the weak and timid back on earth. This isn't a venture for people who aren't willing to take serious risks or who think real "work" is sitting in front of a CRT all day typing TPS reports. Give me people who know construction, farming, materials, mechanics, people who can think on their feet and who can make a round peg fit in a square hole when they need to. Give me people who will work every day to survive and I'll turn the red planet into humanity's second home.
In short, give me pioneers.
Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
It also eliminates the long periods in zero G which seems to be NASA's misguided obsession (evidenced by the fact the 100 billion dollars wasted on the ISS which is now dedicated to zero G physiology research). Not sure after a long trip in zero G and a long period in 1/3 G on Mars a crew will be real happy coming back to earth's 1 G either. You also reduce the risk of radiation exposure in deep space.
Start lobbing cargo containers, habitats, hydroponics, a nuclear reactor etc at Mars ASAP using unmanned ships. Preceed this with a bunch more robotic missions to search for criticial resource on planet like water.
When cargo ships start arriving reliably and you have enough there to sustain colonists send one or two manned flights with a bunch of astronauts, with enough skills, to start a somewhat self sufficient colony or two. Once there there you dont NEED any more manned missions, just some more cargo flights until they learn to tap Mars resources and be self sufficient. When they are self sufficient the huge expense ends but you still have a bold expedition on Mars, in perpetuity, and we have expended our biosphere which is a priceless thing in the event man, or natural events, destroys earth's.
what's needed is misdirection! (Score:5, Funny)
Either that or we nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
FIRST POST FROM MARS (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda laggy, but everything's looking good up here. I just found a new rock that was like a little bit redder than the other one I found yesterday. Cool.
Please send more corn.
Mars...The Australia of the 22nd Century (Score:5, Informative)
Also in that magazine, just last September, a convict volunteered [wired.com] for the trip, and suggested that others in his position might also be suitable and willing to make the trip.
The value of human life (Score:5, Interesting)
Sacrifice your life saving your family = acceptable
Sacrifice your life in defense of your country = acceptable
Sacrifice your life in hopes of new discoveries = no
In the wake of the Challenger and Columbia disasters, there was such a loud outcry and long delays because NASA has to do everything it can to make space a safe place for people. Loss of life is simply unacceptable for us "civilized" westernerns.
Space is dangerous, there is risk and will always be risk. We have to keep trying, and keep learning, and the risk will go down. But it will always remain. Wasting billions of dollars to make it an old program a wee bit (percentage wise) safer is ludicrous. We should set LOWER safety standards, and encourage our government to risk lives and we will have progress in SPace exploration.
If we continue to place this high value on human lives we are doomed to low earth orbit for a long long time. We need to make dieing for scientific discovery as acceptible as dieing for terrorism. Heres a thought how much would we have learned if we lost the ~500 people attempting to establish colonies instead of fighting in Iraq?
True there are plenty of people opposed to the war. Though, I imagine a lot more people can accept 500 deaths as the price to eliminate "terrorism" and threats of biological/chemical/nuclear arms against the US and allies, than could the nebuolous cause of better all mankind through discovery.
Think back to the late 1400 and early 1500's. Our society was just leaving the dark ages, that set science and discovery back 500 years perhaps. We were waking up and things got done. At the time going across the ocean was a major risk, and often represented a one-way trip. We owe our modern western society to these early colonists and explorers.
Granted they did some horrible things in the process, but we learned (and continue to learn) from the mistakes of the past. If I had the opportunity to voluteer for a harsh hard life on mars, leaving my friends and family behind, I would do it. I would encourage my children to do it. Everyone is going to die, and I'd rather I have some say in how it happens.
Exploring in the long run is about survival of our species. All animals have the instinct to protect themselves, and to propogate. Adaptation and exploration are critical elements. As we, as a species, have gotten more intelligent we have become increasingly self centered on survival of the individual. Hence we place extremely high values on individual lives. For example, we often do things to our environment that are short sighted and produce positive effects for only a small subset of our population, while causing a negative effect for the larger community.
Anyway, I applaud someone who has the courage to at least propose the idea. Obviously it will not get far, as it would be way too controversial for any government (at least any Western Government) to support. Maybe the Chinese would consider it?
Another point worth mentioning is that while, we may not have the technology at the time we send them to bring them back. It is certainly possible that after a few years things will have progressed enough to send a "rescue" or retrieval mission. So if they can hold out a decade maybe there will be hope. . .
For what its worth thats my take . .
MS2k
Its about technology and spurring new developments (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end it doesn't matter at all if we actually end up going, but rather what new things we learn and develop along the way.
Lance Bass (Score:5, Funny)
I think that we should look to Ernest Shackelton (Score:5, Insightful)
Ernest Shackelton placed this ad to recruit applicants for his Antartic voyage. Five thousand individuals responded. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is it, save for the deep of the oceans there is little adventure left here. Everst and K2 have been summited, the globe circumnavigated, Antartica traversed. We must look elseware. We must look to the Moon and Mars. Honour and recognition await those who dare apply...
Citations. (Score:5, Informative)
I really wish they would cite prior work here. George Herbert published a piece about this back in 1996, if not before. It's an old idea. It was also one of the proposals for a quick mission to the moon back in 1961. The newsgroup also sci.space.policy beats this to death every few years.
The main issues right now are some specific unkowns when it comes to Mars. The core idea of what they are discussing is possible. NASA's baseline mission to Mars calls for a hab to be sent out in advance of the main mission. That will have working equipment running for a couple years converting the atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen and some form of fuel. Then, a few years of manned habitation, then return. It's an incremental increase in cost to make that an indefinately prolonged mission if you allow for repair and resupply.
The author is downplaying one major item though. There is a definate conflict of resources between building a base and science. ISS is a very good example of that. A smaller crew has to be focussed on whatever task is required. I suspect that the initial crews sent would need to be focussed on building out infrastructure, then latter crews directed at the science.
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The coming into being of something; the origin.
heaven-sent (hvn-snt)
Occurring at an opportune time; providential.
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:3, Funny)
Pet Peeve #1977832: I hate it when they use overt religious terms in scientific articles. Keep religion relegated to where it belongs and keep science scientific.
No kidding, if the opportunity was heaven-sent, why do we have to do all the work?
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor? [colingregorypalmer.net]
American Weblog in London [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, the word "genesis" did not come from the Bible, nor did the word "heaven". "Genesis" is a beginning or creation, "the heavens" describes the sky, and "reading too much into stuff" describes both of us, I think.
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:3, Insightful)
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Isaac Newton in The Mathe
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Keep religion out of it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sending water (Score:5, Informative)
Mars has two ice polls and probably underground water. No need to send anything and in fact, you can make a lot of stuff just from the air water and dirt that you find there.
And I've been bothered by politicians who claim launching from the moon is cheaper. While the moon might be a decent staging area, stuff to launch still has to get there from Earth's gravity well before it goes.
me too. I've read that even if there were spaceships fully built and fuled waiting on the moon, it would still be cheaper in every way to just launch straignt to Mars. I think you should read up on Mars Direct [nw.net]
Re:Sending water (Score:3, Informative)
I'm too lazy to dig up the links but do a google, look at the NASA mars site and search the slashdot archives for info on the Martial polar caps.
Re:Sending water (Score:4, Funny)
I, Volunteer (Score:5, Interesting)
I fully understand motivation. Take a ship over an ocean and then break the ship up for building material. You'll find a way to survive. Just make sure you brought enough stuff on that ship.
NASA never had any lack of volunteers. What it has lacked since Apollo is the will to get things done. And what needs to be done now, is starting up Human civilization in space.
There are better choices than Mars, but it's not so bad. Humans can even live on the surface while is is being kinetically terraformed. If an actual impactor is required, then settlements should avoid the latitudes where those will be aimed.
The good thing about a one-way trip is you don't waste fuel and structure for a return. You can then stock with solar panels, tools, fuel cells, emergency rations, and oxygen extractors. And people. More people. People to get things done.
Send me. I volunteer. My bones may end up moldering early in some sandy grave, a casualty of circumstance, but no one could say that I didn't try.
Re:Hello (Score:4, Funny)