One-Man, One-Way, Why not?

[Polishguy]

Engineer James C. McLane III proposed the Spirit of the Lone Eagle plan, which can be summarized as "Send one man or a man and a woman to Mars and supply them with small rockets. Let them build a base immediately. Don't retrieve them." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/669/1

I've seen this plan get relatively little consideration by NASA, or private companies. Why is this? We have the technology to support one person for the 6 month voyage to Mars, using a habitat no larger than that which could be launched by a Falcon 9 Heavy (I've done the math, and calculated that the Falcon 9 Heavy, with an RL-10 powered upper stage that doesn't fire until LEO, can put a single astronaut and his consumables, and his habitat, and his aeroshell and landing systems, on a trans-Mars trajectory). Using these same rockets and aeroshells, we can land his supplies on the Red Planet. Launching a few times and having him meet his supplies on the surface, we can establish a manned Mars outpost within a decade, and then send more supplies and people. So, why not?

 

[SpacexULA]

Fault tolerance? Aneurysms happen.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

Why would we establish a base on Mars? It is a very long journey from here to there, a lot can happen in the time that it takes just to get there. Also, they are still having problems with people being able to stay cooped up in a confined area for extended periods of time. Imagine how it would be if you had no one to talk to? You seem to support this idea though, why not volunteer yourself to NASA? I won't stop you.

 

[SteveCNC]

I might would consider going if jessica biel was my partner but ... unlikely

 

[JonClarke]

Why would we establish a base on Mars?

For much the same reason as we build stations in the Anarctic, or in Earth orbit, and one day on the Moon. If you want to work in an environment long term a station or network of stations is much more useful than a series of sorties.

It is a very long journey from here to there, a lot can happen in the time that it takes just to get there.

Not a paricularly long any more. Many people have flwon missions of similar or longer duration. And space stations have operted for periods many times longer than a round trip to Mars.

Also, they are still having problems with people being able to stay cooped up in a confined area for extended periods of time.

The problems are manageable. Can you name a polar expedition or long suration space mission abandoned because of such probems? And we are getting better at individual and crew selection all the time.

Imagine how it would be if you had no one to talk to?

Which is why one person missions are not pratical, except as a thought experiment. We are social creatures, we function best in groups, the groups can be small, but we need each other.

You seem to support this idea though, why not volunteer yourself to NASA? I won't stop you.

People can come up with ideas without neccessarily being the ones who are able to fulfill them.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

It's not the actual duration I am talking about, I am talking about a rescue. We can rescue people in orbit far easier than someone going to Mars. Also, what I was trying to say was, why would we establish a base on Mars before we establish a base on the Moon? That is absurd. Also, the space station missions and the Antarctic expeditions have been multiple people. I don't think that many people would be able to endure this kind of mission alone. It isn't just the journey that they will be isolated. They need to sit on Mars and establish a base while everyone on Earth sits back and waits to see if they die. Then they have to wait another 6 months or whatever for someone else to arrive... Does anyone else find this as stupid as I do? I mean no offense, but there is a reason NASA rejected this idea!

 

[Polishguy]

It's not the actual duration I am talking about, I am talking about a rescue. We can rescue people in orbit far easier than someone going to Mars. Also, what I was trying to say was, why would we establish a base on Mars before we establish a base on the Moon? That is absurd. Also, the space station missions and the Antarctic expeditions have been multiple people. I don't think that many people would be able to endure this kind of mission alone. It isn't just the journey that they will be isolated. They need to sit on Mars and establish a base while everyone on Earth sits back and waits to see if they die. Then they have to wait another 6 months or whatever for someone else to arrive... Does anyone else find this as stupid as I do? I mean no offense, but there is a reason NASA rejected this idea!

Establishing a base on Mars is easier than establishing one on the Moon. It takes less delta-v to get to the Martian surface than the Lunar one, on Mars one can make his own breathing oxygen, extract his own water, use the soil for farming, and have a reliable 24 hour day for plant growth.

And you underestimate the power of the human psyche. If we were to keep them occupied on their way to Mars, there'd be no problem. Send them video and audio and text messages from earth, give them books to read (gotta learn about the machines keeping you alive anyway), or, better yet, give them a companion. If we were to increase the payload of the rocket (add two more core stages), we could add a second crew member. Preferably the crew would be a married heterosexual couple of breeding age. Then, the problems of isolation are solved.

As for rescue, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is no rescue available on a trans-Mars trajectory. Once the last stage cuts off, the crew is on a free-return trajectory, and they've either got to go to Mars and then slingshot around or land. This is a given, no matter what size crew we pack.

 

[kelvinzero]

The one man and one way points are really two different issues.

Talking purely about the one man question. Is that really a problem? They still would have communication and people demonstrating support.

I would actually have thought the psychological risks of being cooped up with another person and totally unable to get away for years would be worse.

 

[neilsox]

One may be doable. Admiral Byrd once spent about a year alone in Antarctica. Now we have Internet and video to reduce the isolation at least slightly. These should be available all the way to Mars and perhaps ten out of 25 hours per Mars day on the surface. Several people is better and so is round trip, but lots more vehicle is needed, with increased probability of failure. One way isn't quite as bad as it seems, as advancing technology may provide a way back to Earth 5 or 10 years later.
One way does not reduce supplies, as we cannot be sure living off the land will prove workable, so we need at least bare bones supplies for at least 20 years, and a resupply system mostly proven, before our brave guy or gals starts for Mars. I think there will be lots of volunteers, but second thoughts are likely enroute, if not after landing on the Mars, or Mars Moon surface. Mars' Moon might be a sensible contingency if problems arise with landing. Two ladies, may be the best compromise as either can produce a child from a sperm or embryo bank, when and if, they decide a child/children are prudent. Human population of Mars can exceed 40 in 20 years, with only two sent from Earth. Neil

 

[Woggles]

use the soil for farming

I was wondering if you could expand on this. I would think the soil would be totally dead. Nothing useful, such as organic compounds.

Thanks

Paul

 

[samkent]

This plan would not work for many reasons. Lets start with the money.

You would create an instant welfare state. The novelty of “Man on Mars” will quickly wear off just as it has for all other space ventures. Public resentment would be the same for money being spent supplying Mars just as it is for the stereotypical ‘welfare mom’. Plus there could be comparisons to slavery. “If you want supplies from Earth you must provide us with the Mars data we want.” Slavery or indentured servitude, call it what you want but the individual loses his freedom to choose.

Now for the realities of survival. The single person couldn’t survive long term as nature is stacked against him. Here on our little planet we have far too many redundancies that we take for granted. Air – Water – Edibles – Temperature All of these are stacked against you on Mars. It’s easy to sit in your air conditioned house and say you can plan back ups. But you can’t. Not ones that are guaranteed ‘fail safe’.

Think accident. Many of our minor mishaps here could be fatal there. Simple motor overheating in an unoccupied module could quickly lead to total loss of the module.
Accidents happen to us all the time but we never register them because the consequences are next to nil. But with no one to back you up even the small ones could be fatal. A slip of the hammer, a careless knife. The main reason we haven’t seen significant accidents on the shuttle is due to the high level of scripting and practice of each and every move.

One person? Sorry he won’t make if for long.

 

[dryson]

Think about it one man and one woman if either one of them dies or both of them dies it would be a disaster for the future of Martian colonization. If both made it then it would create a rush to colonize Mars. This scenario is an extreme both ways and should be avoided unless the planet is in jeopardy of blowing up.

 

[Polishguy]

use the soil for farming

I was wondering if you could expand on this. I would think the soil would be totally dead. Nothing useful, such as organic compounds.

Thanks

Paul

Well, Martian soil is richer in most elements of interest to agriculture (phosphates, iron, sulfur, calcium, zinc, copper) than terrestrial soil. The only unknowns are boron and nitrogen, and a potassium deficiency. Nitrogen can be made up for by using automated reactors to fix it from the trace amounts in the atmosphere, and potassium can be mined from natural concentrations of it. SOURCE: The Case for Mars, by Robert Zubrin

 

[samkent]

So you have to setup a sucessful mining operation before you can grow your own food?

Mars the ultimate welfare state. 10 billion per capita per year. This Sunday on 60 Minutes.

 

[JonClarke]

So you have to setup a sucessful mining operation before you can grow your own food?

No, you can grow food hydroponically.

Should you sant grow foods in soilit would mean digging it up with a shovel and putting into pots in a greenhouse. Hardly mining in the popular vision of the word.

 

[vulture4]

To add a note of reality, if you have the capital no one is stopping you. If you want the taxpayers to finance such a joyride you can try to convince them, but it's pretty darn unlikely.

 

[samkent]

Hydroponics still requires the same nutrients as soil plants. So you still have to dig up or manufacture them.

 

[EarthlingX]

Hydroponics still requires the same nutrients as soil plants. So you still have to dig up or manufacture them.

Main material in hydroponics is water.

Assuming using 10 l of water for every sq m of growing surface, and 1000 m2 of total growing surface, gives 10 000 l of water in circulation.

Assuming 200 ppm for nutrients (only for the main, N, P, K, perhaps also Ca, other will require much less) it gives 0,2 kg per elemental nutrient. Since they come in salts, it will be a bit more depending on the chemical formula, but i guess not over 0,5 kg of nutrient per 1000 m2.

No big deal.

 

[vulture4]

Admiral Byrd once spent about a year alone in Antarctica.

Read Byrd's book, "Alone". He was alone for about 4 months and then his friends had to risk their lives to rescue him as his communications got more erratic. He was getting headaches, losing his memory, and having other symptoms. He was convinced he had carbon monoxide poisoning and shut off his stove, after which he nearly froze to death. When he was rescued his friends found nothing wrong with the stove. At the end of the book Byrd, the tough explorer admiral, finally begins to admit what is now obvious to the reader, that he nearly died not due to equipment failure but because he was suffering from major depression, a psychotic state, which may have been partly induced by the polar night. Moreover his whole rationale for staying alone, that two people would be at each other's throats and that supplies were insufficient for three, was in retrospect a rationalization and very poor judgment.

Now obviously numerous people have been alone for long periods without ill effects, but in most cases they could have returned to civilization or requested help. The risk to the mission is so high with only one crewman that NASA would certainly not attempt it.

 

[JonClarke]

Hydroponics still requires the same nutrients as soil plants. So you still have to dig up or manufacture them.

But the volume and masses are small. Most of the mass of a plant comes from CO2 and H2O, which Mars would supply. It takes a lot of work to manufacture hydroponic nutrients so I suggest it would be easiest to bring them from Earth, until you were confident that you could use the local soil.

Once you start food production you are going to be generating a lot of organic waste suitable for composting, and you will rapidly have enough to condition soil.

 

[JonClarke]

Admiral Byrd once spent about a year alone in Antarctica.

Read Byrd's book, "Alone". He was alone for about 4 months and then his friends had to risk their lives to rescue him as his communications got more erratic. He was getting headaches, losing his memory, and having other symptoms. He was convinced he had carbon monoxide poisoning and shut off his stove, after which he nearly froze to death. When he was rescued his friends found nothing wrong with the stove. At the end of the book Byrd, the tough explorer admiral, finally begins to admit what is now obvious to the reader, that he nearly died not due to equipment failure but because he was suffering from major depression, a psychotic state, which may have been partly induced by the polar night. Moreover his whole rationale for staying alone, that two people would be at each other's throats and that supplies were insufficient for three, was in retrospect a rationalization and very poor judgment.

Anyone who advocates one person trips to Mars needs to read Alone. Other than a great book and a polar classic, it also shows why one person missions are a bad idea.

It is very clear from the book the CO posioning was the problem, resulting from poor installation and worse construction of the stove.

Whether two would have been any better off under these circumstances is moot, you may well have have ended up two people who needed rescue, not one. However two people would have prevented other nearly fatal incidents, like being frozen out of his hut or getting lost in poor visibility.

Two is the pratical minimum, there have been quite a few polar expeditions with only two people, and of course many long duration space missions. But there are no reserves in sucvh a situation.