Mars: One Way
 

And since the greatest portion of expenses will be incurred by the safe return of the crew and spacecraft to Earth, the authors conclude that a manned one-way mission to Mars would both cut costs and help initiate Martian colonization.



"It would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return," said Davies, a cosmologist at from Arizona State University in Phoenix. "Explorers such as Columbus, Frobisher, Scott and Amundsen, while not embarking on their voyages with the intention of staying at their destination, nevertheless took huge personal risks to explore new lands, in the knowledge that there was a significant likelihood that they would perish in the attempt."



Stay. That is a pretty simple very sensible idea drawn from history.

"...significant likelihood that they would perish in the attempt." Is not the same as definite knowledge that they're fucked.

Maybe the same idea and risks when the Polynesians set out to sea,
and ended up discovering (all ?) the islands of the South Pacific.

Just thinking about that gives me chills...

I wonder WTF those folks are smoking to draw a comparison between travel to another part of a planet that you know supports life and travel to another planet that you know does not support life.

Reminds me of the radio station ID that went "The songs we play may not be your favorites but they have a lot of the same notes." Same logic.

I'm sure there are people that would volunteer to go on a one way, I'm also sure there would people adamantly against allowing, financing it, or even officially condoning it.

I'll go.

*looks for sign-up sheet*

I bet the Canadian military pilot who flew Queen Elizabeth around and was just convicted of two murders and will spend the rest of his life in prison would be both qualified to go and would want to go instead of going to prison.

Read Red Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson, for a completely fictional, yet entertaining, stroy of how it would work. Don't bother reading Green Mars or Blue Mars.

I missed that item.

Just googled it and saw this line:
Umm, wouldn't that be exactly the type of person you'd want to entrust with secrets? I mean someone who can keep a secret?

agreed. i got 2/3 of the way through red mars.. poorly written and boring.

and i'm easy to entertain.

That might be (or become) a solo mission

Mars. The new Australia.

exactly

The big difference between the pilgrims coming here, and staying, and us going to Mars, to stay: Existing food/water. We had it when the pilgrims came here.

There is no food on Mars. And no weed.

If we can grow wheat in Brazil we can grow pot on Mars.

Even the Rover Spirit cannot stay alive in normal sub-freezing summer temperatures on the equator. Because it solar array could not be fully pointed at the sun, it looks like winter killed even transistors. Transistors. Things that are perfectly good even at -40 degrees.

With its big solar arrays - the best and most efficient mankind can produce - the Rovers have a 100 watts of electricity for the four hours every day. How does any man survive end when even solar arrays produce near zero energy? Well so many feel they can. Therefore we can even grow hemp. Export ropes from Mars.

World’s best science comes from machines - with no humans nearby.

Has the Spirit died? Probably. It could not generate enough electricity to even keep transistors alive. Next few weeks will say more. Rumor has it that Spirit is already inside a Martian junk yard. It could not even defend itself. Mars is vicious even for machines.

If we keep sending up hardware, then the Martians will construct a pot. Then Martian cannibals can broast astronauts. Better is to give them something they cannot eat. Martian Rovers.

BTW, no water has been found on Mars. Theories suggests water left only a few hundred thousand years ago. Even water decided it was better to leave Mars.

The "best" solar array for an aging mobile system is not the best and most efficient mankind can build. In the case of permanent human settlement, efficiency should give way to durability and ease of production. Machines are useful but they are not man and do not meet the primary objective of species survival. Science is the means not the end.

Doesn't having government scientist's with a primary objective of species survival, just reinforce the old attitude of I don't have to worry about how I treat the Earth, science will come up with a fix?

I think of it more as a safety valve for when the inevitable world wide f'up comes down the line, but you are right that that attitude exists in some form.

On 4 Mar 2004 at Perverting science for politics And so the AMS has sat quashed until we finally removed a wacko extremist from office. Suddenly, a critical experiment addressing quantum physics is acceptable again. Dr Ting's Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is now scheduled for a very last space shuttle flight. But more interesting, it will do science where no virtually no science is performed - ISS.

Manned spaceflight, which takes almost all of NASA's budget, does almost no science. Almost all science is performed by robots and machines for very little money. Which is why Man to Mars is also so obviously rediculous.

AMS needs no manual intervention. It only requires a vehicle to carry it. And that will be ISS. ISS does so little science (due to men being on it) that the AMS is a very welcome attachment. At least astronauts can be adjacent to science that works just fine without them.

AMS was killed off in 2003. From the New York Times of 18 Nov 2010: And still, Dr Ting's AMS, which must answer a critical quantum physics question about positron numbers, could not get a ride until the very last Shuttle was looking for a payload.

By putting too many men in space, therefore too little science gets done. AMS is more science planned in the 1990s, essential to answering fundamental science questions, and will finally get launched in 2011. Meanwhile we built an ISS that does almost no science; all for the glory and myths of man in space.

The space station is about what happens to people in space, cooperation between governments and people of different backgrounds.
It's a social experiment that could help humans more than any science experiment ever could.

Put a bunch of Chilean miners is a hole for months with a Peruvian. A testy experiment that accomplishes the same thing.

Or Biosphere 2. Same thing.

What could have taught the world far more? The lesson learned from Desert Storm where literally the entire world united for a common goal. Or the Balkan where Europe learned how much must still be learned. Or Sudan. Or the many Central African states. That is governments and people learning from social experiments - that also are not learned on the ISS.

What really was the ISS? A project to test peaceful cooperation between former cold war adversaries. That purpose was long since become obsolete. Meanwhile the ISS such the living blood out of mankind's most important activity - fundamental science.

That's why you can understand what going on, tw. Thinking fundamental science is mankind's most important activity is misguided. Mankind's most important activity is getting along with each other.

It may not be the best for science, but the ISS is pretty cool. Imagine if that was you posing there. It's the perfect profile picture for the Cellar or Facebook.

But glatt, that's obviously a posed picture. They put the Earth outside that window just to tug on earthlings heartstrings. They probably do the same thing with other planets to garner support there too. :haha:

Which was made irrelevant when we use ships, jet airplanes, passports, telephones, eliminate tariffs, create the UN, remove silly immigration quotas, international law, ... Oh. All that was made possible by so many breakthroughs in fundamental science and the resulting products.

Also cool is the Tower of Babel. So we should build one?

The point is that best science is performed by machines. Not by sending men into environments that man performs so poorly in.

Telescopes work best without men nearby. Deep sea research and even oil exploration only by machines and robots. Advance semiconductor, nuclear, and quantum physics - remove the humans. Since the 1960s, science has advanced because even space exploration is now possible and done better by machines. Machines will only get even more productive, intelligent, and flexible when men stay where men are most productive. Where men can do what men do best to advance fundamental science.

Ships, jet airplanes, passports, telephones, didn't solve the problem, they created it. When we were isolated, there was no friction except immediate neighbors, but now we can annoy people 12,000 miles away in a heartbeat.

I do believe if you had the power, you'd eliminate people entirely. :eyebrow:

Death and destruction is most often traceable to no communication. Best way to avoid hate and harm is meeting people by plane, boat, phone, and those so many other listed achievements. Trade is by far one of the best ways to avert problems. Possible and made necessary because of fundamental science advancements. The greatest centers of peace, prosperity, and the advancement of mankind occurred where communication was easiest and encouraged, because science prospered.

Science is the foundation from which virtually every good thing happens. Only possible when humans are educated, productive, and pushing out the envelope. But instead we should have covens of witches and warlocks since, as you recommended, man's most important activity is, instead, getting along and staying ignorant.

Therefore we need more Christine O'Donnels to advance mankind. Who has no idea what science is. Whose solutions can be found in more religion. It is easier to get along when prettier witches have tea parties. Screw science. Or not.

Watch 'Moon' and imagine this kind of sci fi BS actually set forth.

No way two peeps could endure the '6 month' trip, let alone setting up a base on Mars.

Liar, I never said "staying ignorant". Science will solve all out social problems, was the post war cry to the masses. How'd that work out for ya? :rolleyes:

No fo0hzy, I'm not talking to you.

Submariners do extended missions.

How many tons of materials and systems surround each sailor to protect him from a not so harsh environment? Mars makes that underwater environment equivalent to a tropical paradise.

What is the price of each pound to Mars? Something like $hundreds of thoudands or $millions per pound. How many submariners survive in a mild environment with a few hundred pounds of equipment to protect him? And no equipment to do the science.

A manned trip to Mars is about 1 year. Without protection as provided by earth for ISS, those astronauts would die prematurely. No protection solution exists yet even in theory.

Best science means humans back on earth sending machines to do most work. Even ocean science is now done by machines - not by humans. It takes too many tons to keep one man alive even in very shallow water.

That's all great if people were strictly rational. They're not. There is something in the human spirit that loves a wilderness. The same kind of people who climb mount Everest because it's there will go to Mars - someday.

Right.

A two man/woman mission to Mars is simply not going to succeed, I don't care how many pairs are launched behind them. And fiscally it is not possible anyway, so Mars will remain a dreamed-about destination for many decades.

We need to get back to the Moon. That's where science should focus.

Actually we need to get back to doing the only thing that made America great - science and innovation. If that is missions to Mars, the moon, or ... does anyone know about the massive mission to Jupiter called Juno? Or the James Webb telescope? Or the so many mission to follow up on Solar Max. Or what the Japanese recently attempted? Or the AMS that is about science - not about making politicians look good.

Same applies to quantum physics where we destroyed the Super Collider - fundamental and essential science - for a political 'feel good' mission called ISS. Its not about where we should go. It is about what science is best done.

If going to the moon is important, then science that makes that necessary is also defined. It is about science. Not about glory.

Probably the greatest space science experiment has been Hubble. But Hubble is too close to earth. Which is why a most promising space research project will be the Webb telescope. The best science is done for science. And no longer deploys man in space.

Agreed

ARE YOU INSANE?

Man MUST explore... even beyond known limits.

But yes, A Mars mission is doomed to fail.

To the Moon? We've been there, done that. Just pull the map out of the glovebox and go back.

I agree on the urge to explore - that's one of our biggest challenges right now, needing some way to fulfill this urge - but where? You reject Mars, and seem to be rejecting the moon.

Mind you, getting to the moon isn't that easy. NASA threw out the Apollo plans, and RFN we have no spaceship that could take us there.

I have not rejected the moon as a destination. Mars? Yeah. For now.

NASA isn't what it once was, but the brains are there. I say we visit our landing site.

A mission to the moon was called Constellation. It was planned by extremists who believe the status quo is innovative. So Orion is called Apollo on steriods.

Where as the Russians now launch a man into space for $tens of millions, the Constellation must charge $1 billion for the same seat. A classic example of why America's government manned space program has come to a crashing roadblock.

Rare events require a man in space. But the greatest advancements and what makes possible future manned flight means that Nasa's budget should be at least 50% for non-manned flight. To do science rather than glory. Innovations necessary to make manned flight productive must come from the only place that does science. Unmanned science.

That same lesson is now found in all other advanced science where glory is replaced by hard logic and practical thinking.

BTW, you do know a Space Shuttle has been flying for months - maybe a year now. It is a military Space Shuttle that has no humans aboard. Obviously done for productive tasks - not for glory. But due to the nature of bird, its purpose is only speculation.

Largest impediment to America's manned space program occurred in 2004 when fools subverted that program by simply redoing Saturn V and the Apollo program all over again rather then thinking innovatively. As a result, rockets such as Proton and Ariane now own the heavy launching business and will probably be the only viable transport to ISS. America's Constellation is a technological nightmare due to how and where it was conceieved.

Time to see this disaster coming was when the same White House lawyers, who were rewriting science papers, were also making the plans for NASA's future. Ignored the scientists to think only in terms of 1970 technology. We now have to live with their legacy until private operations such as SpaceX or SpaceShipOne finally get commercial operations started.

I had mentioned bits and pieces of what we now know as the destruction of America's manned space program. Was anybody listening?

Among some of the symptoms was a George Jr program to quash many science experiments and even the rescue of Hubble. To White House lawyers, these were only unnecessary expenses without sufficient glory.

Utter nonsense. America was made great by many things, one of which was the existence of a frontier safety valve for people who are temperamentally unsuited for sitting in a cubicle watching robots getting stuck in sand.

One of which were the Great Prairies of the Midwest...
A surplus of food makes time to do other things.

Same for the Pacific and Mountains of the Northwest...
A surplus of timber and minerals

Even tho I grew up there, I'm not so sure about California, or of Florida :rolleyes:

And so you have proved that most of Africa are world dominate nations.

Actually we are all Africans and the dominant world economies were developed by those Africans who sought out new lands.

We have been reaching out to and exploring the unknown since the beginning of mankind. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

Amazing so much silence on a major accomplishment. The George Jr administration literally destroyed America's space program by killing the Shuttles, created a boondoggle called, Constellation, Ares, and Orion, and almost killed Hubble. The fools even annouced a 'Man to Mars' without even consulting science. As a good MBA, he did everything necessary to destroy America and its economy for his own glory and emotions.

Then someone with intelligence came to power. Fixed America's space program. A milestone was a SpaceX launch of the Dragon capsule. Maybe three more private companies are also doing what makes America great. By not doing what is taught in business schools. And by undoing the disasters created by the George Jr administration.

America in the first decade of 2000 surrendered the satellite launch business mostly to the Russians and French. America has been surrendering science to overseas nations. We have only just started to recover from ten years of pathetic leadership. Dragon and SpaceX are simply one of many examples of how America is slowly clawing its way back.

Since Limbaugh and Fox remained quiet, then many did not even understand the significance. Surprising is a silence in the Cellar. Apparently few really understood a major significance of SpaceX and other ongoing projects.

Of course, innovation can take ten years to result in actual products. Those who see reality rather than spread sheets can appreciate why America could only be richer and healthier when we canceled a dumb 'Man to Mars' and Constellation / Ares / Orion. Trophies to the low intelligence of George Jr and his administration.

We are currently undoing almost a decade of America's destruction. Including other trophies such as Mission Accomplished and the protection of bin Laden.

Yeah, SpaceX was cool. I watched the docking live. The splashdown was very nostalgic too. It's been decades since I'd seen one of those.

I've touched one of the Dragon capsules.

It's funny that the spy agencies just gave NASA two telescopes better than Hubble because there is no way to get them into orbit now. So they were worthless to the spy agencies and they figured "Hey, why not give them to NASA?" I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion.

So many politicians complained about the cost of Hubble and the upcoming Web telescopes. These same bean counters types even destroyed something like eight major earth science satellites, in part, because they might further prove mankind is creating global warming.

Meanwhile, the NRO has more expensive technology than they can launch. Because Americans cannot throw enough money at the military. But use MBA cost controls on anything that would do innovation or advance mankind.

Well, it was worse a decade ago. Honesty now means the NRO can admit to so many technologies bought and paid for at much higher costs. And sit unused. Because if we spend more money on the military, then people will love us?

They probably point the wrong way.

My understanding is that they are sitting in a wharehouse on Earth.

'twere a joke oriented on the CIA's desire to look down and NASA's desire to look up.

I figured it was a joke, but then the first time I heard this story, they didn't say the telescopes were in a warehouse, and I assumed they were in orbit, and I thought that was super cool. BUt then I later learned they were sitting in a warehouse and were just expensive paperweights. So, I clarified in case you had made the same initial false assumption I had.

Sorry for making you explain it was a joke. :(

psh... I get that *all the time*. You're special, but not in that way.

They do not sit in warehouses. And are not the only 'defense' birds in similar storage. Many duplicates of so many defense satellites sit in secure clean rooms.

A difference from Hubble: its lens has a wider aperture.

Even flying is a 'secret' robotic version of the space shuttle. Unknown is how many of those are sitting is storage.

Going to America is definitely not the same as going to Mars...
The more obvious comparison is the international space station. The first people to live on the surface of Mars would effectively live on a space station, just, on the surface of a planet. And it would have to be a one way trip, because getting there and back will not feasible for a long time.
We send food and stuff to the international space station all the time. Mars is obviously WAY further but I think we would be able to do it. Meanwhile the scientists could begin the long, slow, difficult process of terraforming Mars. They may never get to come back, but they get to terraform Mars. And that is AWESOME. I refuse to believe that people cannot be found to sign up for that. I'd sign up if I thought I could be of any use.

The ISS sits heavily protected by Earth's magnetic fields. No such protection exists on the years trip to nor on Mars. Years of human life cannot exist without that protection. Just one of too many reasons why mankind explores with machines; not with bodies.

Again, Man to Mars was a ridiculous idea promoted by ignoring scientists and realities. At this point, everyone should realize the best and most productive work is done by machines. Even astronomy not longer sends it scientists to the tops of mountains. Machines do that work.

The ISS is a classic example of $billions spent for almost a decade with zero science conducted. Almost all science in NASA's budget is done by machines. Unfortunately, due to so many manipulated by spin and emotion, we instead spend massive sums putting man in space. Therefore doing much less science.

There's quite a bit of "unknown" in that post, buddy.

How many space planes does the US Air Force have? Unknown. However one X-37B, continuously observed by amateur astronomers, is expected to be landing sometime in June.
http://www.space.com/15926-secret-x3...e-landing.html

Tonight is the night when, just out of curiosity, NASA gambles $2.5 billion
on a Look-Mom-No-Hands, one-time only, multi-stage descent to Mars.

CNET
by Dara Kerr
August 3, 2012

How NASA tests an against-all-odds Mars rover landing