One Way Trip to Mars

[Gravity_Ray]

Based on the new story in Space.com

http://www.space.com/news/mars-one-way- ... 01021.html

How many of you would go on a "one way" trip to Mars? How many of those would be psychologically stable? Obviously they will need to be engineers and survivalists, possibly military types. Not sure if scientists will be best candidates for the first group though.

I am a space enthusiasts but I doubt I can honestly go on a one way trip though. Obviously you cant have a young family.

I still think that before any humans go on a one way trip, there should be robots there for ISRU work. There has to be a certain amount of resources already collected before people get there. Maybe a year worth of collection of some gas resources by robots near a safe location such as an "ice cave".

It is an intriguing idea since many Earth colonization’s were in effect one way trips.

 

[Space_pioneer]

No. I will not go simply because the chance of the first colonization effort being a complete bust is too high. Call back in 20 years.

 

[AsimovFan]

Why go one way, you can send multiple ships to mars and back easily with solar sails.

 

[Space_pioneer]

Why go one way, you can send multiple ships to mars and back easily with solar sails.

Because a solar sail capable of moving all of the equipment aboard a massive ships would not be cost-effective. Besides, you would still need something when you start getting to the orbit.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Sure, I'd go. But I want a couple guarantees first. Here in Arizona, in order to get a permit to build a new housing complex one of the criteria is to prove there is an available supply of water for 100 years. This is exactly the type of guarantee that I'd require, but for more than water. Food, radiation protection, atmosphere, tools, a way to clean my clothes, toothpaste, toilet paper, water (not necessarily in that order) & a zillion other things.
If I have to make many of these things, that's cool. I just want the stuff I need to do so.
Without those guarantees you're just sending people there to be fertilizer.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

A one way trip is not necessary or desirable. The return trip costs money, but it's worth it to bring the astronauts and their valuable samples and science experiments back to Earth. The primary goal of Mars missions should be science, and that means a trip home. Some private companies may choose to do this, but NASA will not just send off astronauts to never return again.

 

[rcsplinters]

I saw the article. Makes for a nice thought experiment. Fact remains that we can't colonize our own oceans or poles. Both are garden spots requiring trivial technology, risk and resources by comparison to mars. One way to Mars isn't colonization, that's murder, at least for the 200 years.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Well the point is that the return trip home is very expensive. Probably more than the trip there since your equipment has to survive the trip there, sit there for some long period of time and then work 100% on the trip back. Making that happen is probably more expensive than just a one way trip.

I think what they were driving at was that instead of that massively additional expense, why not move that money to the next trip there. Each time 2 new people go with additional supplies, or just additional supplies shipped there for the colony.

I admit I couldn’t do it, but there are plenty of people that have minimum ties to this planet and are very capable of surviving on their own. With no return trip, the outbound trip will be cheaper and so can happen more often, and with each successive trip there, the colony can grow.

By the way, this doesn’t mean "never coming back". A trip back can then be made at some point in the future as the colony is strengthened and additional resources made available In Setu.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

But you missed my point. Colonization is not NASA's goal or priority. It is science- going not only to the moon, but Mars as well, and hopefully to the moons of the outer planets. Learning as much as we can about these fascinating places and maybe even finding life out there. I do not support an Apollo style mission where we went but did not stay, I support a Mars base that has its crew cycled out every 500 days or so. A ship will be coming anyway, so the astronauts could ride it back and bring back with them the science experiments and rock samples for Earth analysis.

 

[Space_pioneer]

But you missed my point. Colonization is not NASA's goal or priority. It is science- going not only to the moon, but Mars as well, and hopefully to the moons of the outer planets. Learning as much as we can about these fascinating places and maybe even finding life out there. I do not support an Apollo style mission where we went but did not stay, I support a Mars base that has its crew cycled out every 500 days or so. A ship will be coming anyway, so the astronauts could ride it back and bring back with them the science experiments and rock samples for Earth analysis.

Would it really be a good idea to send astronauts until we know if there is microscopic life or not? Some extremophiles could hitch a ride on the ship, and stay after the astronauts leave. Sure, they could also die as soon as they made it to the martian surface, but screwing up another ecosystem is very bad.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Sorry if I mis-understood Yuri, but I really dont think the article was about NASA!

I think with all the additional rockets in progress (Atlas, Delta, and Falcon Heavies) the trip to Mars will not be made by NASA but with a private group (or groups).

With the heavy launchers you can launch the CSS (commercial space station) and use it as a ship to go to Mars. Once in orbit there, you can stage from that. Land various Landers down on Mars (with no way back) and start building your colony. This colony will be supplied from time to time by un-manned Landers (or manned Landers) and stay in communications with the CSS in orbit.

This process can also be done on the Moon. For the Moon you have the additional benefit of being able to land the whole darned CSS right in a Moon crater and you will have instant Moon base. Cover it with some regolith and you are protected as well.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Would it really be a good idea to send astronauts until we know if there is microscopic life or not? Some extremophiles could hitch a ride on the ship, and stay after the astronauts leave. Sure, they could also die as soon as they made it to the martian surface, but screwing up another ecosystem is very bad.

Life on Mars, at least on the surface, seems very unlikely. No liquid water, high amounts of UV radiation, low surface temperatures. Any life that does exist will almost certainly be found underground in hot springs or the poles. Martian rocks have been hitting Earth for billions of years, in fact we get hit by 500 kg of Martian rocks every year. There is no danger of extremophiles returning to Earth and ruining our ecosystem. Just as there is no threat of our microorganisms harming them- they would be completely different planetary species, and would have no relation to each other. A virus can only attack a host that it has been adapted to over millions of years. The "back contaminaton" issue has been answered so many times it's not even funny. If you have more interest in this look at this: http://books.google.com/books?id=tyGFoz ... &q&f=false

Robert Zubrin makes it clear that back contamination is not a problem. Besides, one of the main objectives of any Mars mission will be to search for life, not avoiding it.

Sorry if I mis-understood Yuri, but I really dont think the article was about NASA!

I think with all the additional rockets in progress (Atlas, Delta, and Falcon Heavies) the trip to Mars will not be made by NASA but with a private group (or groups).

That seems very unlikely. What private group is going to go to Mars if the resources of the greatest space program on Earth has not yet done it? Chances are it will not just be NASA, but it will be NASA along with some international partners as well. Either way is fine with me, but it will require the genius and experience of NASA and the other space agencies for a Mars mission. Private companies can help, but I just don't see it happening on their own.

With the heavy launchers you can launch the CSS (commercial space station) and use it as a ship to go to Mars. Once in orbit there, you can stage from that. Land various Landers down on Mars (with no way back) and start building your colony. This colony will be supplied from time to time by un-manned Landers (or manned Landers) and stay in communications with the CSS in orbit.

[/quote]
I prefer the cycler idea with a ship that constantly goes between Mars and Earth, and the crews dock to it every 500 days or so. The fact of the matter is that Mars is not really a safe place- we don't know for sure if the first crew will survive the first Mars expedition. Stranding a crew there with no way back if there is some sort of catastrophic failure is not only unethical, but is a huge detriment to science and the space program. NASA needs permanent bases on other worlds which are consistently cycled out, and eventually the base can become bigger to allow more people and hopefully become a town on its own. I have no doubt that private companies will play a part in this.

And as I said earlier, these one way trips are not very scientific. You can't bring back the astronauts, their rock samples, their science experiments, etc. NASA's responsibility is not colonization, it is learning more about our universe and advancing the technology and place of America in the world.

 

[Space_pioneer]

Thanks for the book and answering my question Yuri. I'll look into it.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I am a big NASA supporter, but the problem that NASA has is not its abilities (they are extremely capable), but the problem is funding. The government loves to play yo-yo with NASA. Each administration that comes along plays a different tune and NASA has to dance.

NASA also has become very risk averse. They have the burden of some crap for brains Congressman doing the 20-20 hindsight boogie when something goes wrong for their own benefit. Basically NASA has been thrown under the bus every time something goes wrong. As if the space exploration business is the same thing as going to your corner ice cream shop to buy an ice cream cone. So NASA has to over-over-over engineer everything which makes it slow and expensive.

No, I doubt NASA will explore the human space flight aspect of Mars. It will be a private endeavor. So what if people die if you’re a private company? That only matters if you are NASA and funded by public money. If you’re private, even if people die you will show the big middle finger to everybody and say we did what we wanted to do.

Every year several people die climbing Mount Everest. Why don’t you see a big cry out? Because those people are doing it on their own dime and its none of anybodies business. That’s why. But if some government group loses somebody climbing Mount Everest it will be a major news story for weeks.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

NASA should and will go to Mars, for the same reason that we went to the Moon. Private companies can do as they wish, but when NASA goes I do not want to see a one way trip. The point of the mission should be science, colonization can be handled later on in collaboration with private companies.

I do not see a private company going to Mars because there is just too much involved. If they can then that's great, but I'm more optimistic that NASA will achieve it first.

 

[SteveCNC]

You know I've seen people post saying they want shipments sent back from mars for science purposes but if humans are on mars there shouldn't be a reason to do that . With humans present surely there will be plenty of scientific equipment sent along with not just for survival reasons but for scientific reasons as well . Any information gathered could be sent to earth digitally .

Also from what I read a round trip to mars using current technology should take two years or a multiple of two due to launch windows for best trip time . I think a one way trip is pretty much for people in their twenties , possibly somewhat older depending on attachments here on earth but from a total work expected over ones life on mars it wouldn't be for the older set like myself (53) . Some day there may be two year vacations to mars , but for a colony to work it needs to start with the best possibility for success .

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

You know I've seen people post saying they want shipments sent back from mars for science purposes but if humans are on mars there shouldn't be a reason to do that . With humans present surely there will be plenty of scientific equipment sent along with not just for survival reasons but for scientific reasons as well . Any information gathered could be sent to earth digitally .

It's not that simple though. Yes, they will bring scientific equipment with them, but it would be better for the facilities on Earth to have just like the moon rocks for intensive study, beyond what the astronauts on Mars can do with their small scientific facilities. It's also good to bring back the spaceship with all of its important data, and also the valuable experience that Martian astronauts would have.

A one way trip makes sense if you are in the business of colonization, there is no need to go back. But I will not support a NASA one way trip colonization mission- that is not their purpose or goal. It is just not fair to send astronauts off to Mars permanently before we know just how safe it would be. We don't know if a human presence on Mars would work out, I think it would but it is a dangerous place and if they experience some catastrophic disaster they will be stranded there.

Like I said earlier, private companies interesting in colonization can undertake the task but please don't get NASA involved with this one way trip business. It doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view.

 

[bdewoody]

I posted over in the thread with the poll the following:
OK now that I have read the proposal I don't think I'll try to get selected. Four people all alone on Mars for several years before additional supplies or companions would arrive would probably make for a good study in sociology. I didn't read whether the proposal called for men and women or what mix they would use. I think the smallest group I would be willing to be part of would be 20 or so colonists.

One way trips of that size might work but as one poster pointed out only after several unmanned missions set up the colony site with all of the supplies needed to keep the colony going for several years.

It would be a big bummer to find out once they are there with no prospect of return that either (a) the environment is just too hostile (b) the psychological impact of just four humans living together over long periods produces chaos or (c) the long tern effects induce diseases that cannot be treated in such a limited environment.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

woody, we should not be going to Mars for sociology and colonization experiments. That's just not fair for the astronauts. Sure, they want to go, but they want to come back also. Sending them off to Mars with no chance of return for many years is almost like a death sentence if they encounter any major problems. As long as NASA is left out of it, then I have no issue, but private companies would be wise to practice living and working on Mars before doing it all the way the first time.

 

[bdewoody]

woody, we should not be going to Mars for sociology and colonization experiments. That's just not fair for the astronauts. Sure, they want to go, but they want to come back also. Sending them off to Mars with no chance of return for many years is almost like a death sentence if they encounter any major problems. As long as NASA is left out of it, then I have no issue, but private companies would be wise to practice living and working on Mars before doing it all the way the first time.

Yuri, you missed my point completely. It is because a small (4 man group) cadre of colonists would end up in a disaster with the only result being a study in sociology that I would not participate in such a venture. Colonists by definition are volunteers for a one way trip. Relatively few europeans who came over to America or other colonies ever went back to their point of origin as most never intended to. The difference is they left in large groups and ended up in places that already had populations of humans and the animals needed for food. Those who go to Mars are going to need to take most everything they need to survive and to me survival means companionship and reproduction.

Everybody is going to die but most prefer to die of old age with some hope that they have left decendants behind to carry on their family.

 

[neutrino78x]

Relatively few europeans who came over to America or other colonies ever went back to their point of origin as most never intended to. The difference is they left in large groups and ended up in places that already had populations of humans and the animals needed for food. Those who go to Mars are going to need to take most everything they need to survive and to me survival means companionship and reproduction.

I agree, I think colonization efforts will happen when we have the ability to take 500+ people over there.

--Brian

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Woody

I like your idea of some threshold number being sent at once. I also agree with Yuri that NASA should not be involved directly with colonization of Mars.

Where I disagree with Yuri is in the fact that private companies should attempt this process. Its possible that this may end up badly for the humans that go. But they go to accomplish this task with the understanding that they may forfeit their lives. If you understand that and still do something, I wont call it a "bad thing".

I would prefer as you say to get a larger number going (I like your number 20), however right now we would be hard pressed to get more than 6 people there at a time. So I dont want to wait for 20. I say we send a group of 6 followed by another group of 6 on the next launch opportunity.

First of all though I would stipulate that robots be sent first to begin mining for hydrogen, so a certain amount of ISRU needs to be taking place before humans even go. That at the very least will give them water and energy before people get there.

The first group should be engineers that will be able to set up the living quarters. I wouldn’t worry too much about their sexes as they will probably be too darned busy to worry about anything like that for the first year anyway. But I agree that for their mental health the second group should contain females and not just be all males.

I think the point of the story was that we can go without MASSIVE budgets for return trips set up from the beginning. For people of my age group (upper 40s, lower 50s), this is not a death sentence, because we are all going to go soon anyway, and some additional risk in the form of space radiation is not a “no-go” factor.

 

[StarRider1701]

NASA should and will go to Mars, for the same reason that we went to the Moon. Private companies can do as they wish, but when NASA goes I do not want to see a one way trip. The point of the mission should be science, colonization can be handled later on in collaboration with private companies.

I do not see a private company going to Mars because there is just too much involved. If they can then that's great, but I'm more optimistic that NASA will achieve it first.

I must agree Yuri. Making the first human trip to Mars a "One-way Colonial Effort" is stupidity in the extreme. True we know a lot about the place from our robot landers and rovers, but robots can only do so much. The first few missions needs/must be scientific. But each mission COULD perhaps set the stage for a colony, in terms of leaving behind some equipment and maybe even a few supplies for some future colonial effort.
A one way trip to Mars? Now? There are so many easier, cheaper ways to commit suicide.

 

[kk434]

If you send a couple of habitats and tools/spare parts before the humans the whole idea sounds good. If thier habitat survived for 20 years i think that the tech to send some of them back to earth would exist. Secondly exploration is risky buisness, if Columbus adopted a 0 risk policy he would have stayed in Europe.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

I'm sorry but no. We have not had one pair of boots on the ground there yet and people are already talking about one-way colonization. We need to learn how to actually live on Mars safely before sending astronauts to their doom like that. It just isn't fair to strand people there with no chance of return in case something goes wrong. Yes, it is risky, but we should not take foolish risks- this is why we have so many redudancies in our spacecraft.

Besides, NASA has no business in colonization and it will take a government organization and likely an international partnership to get to Mars. One day private companies may attempt to go there and try to colonize, and NASA should eventually help them with that. But for now we just need to go there and find out everything that the robots couldn't tell us.