One Way Trip to Mars

[barts]

There's a debate taking place about send people to Mars. One group advocates a voyage that includes provisions to bring the astronauts back to earth. Another group is advocating one-way trips, which would be much less expensive and possible with today's technology.

See Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars for an overview of the debate.

Invoking the spirit of "Star Trek" in a scholarly article entitled "To Boldly Go," two scientists contend human travel to Mars could happen much more quickly and cheaply if the missions are made one-way. They argue that it would be little different from early settlers to North America, who left Europe with little expectation of return.

An official for NASA said the space agency envisions manned missions to Mars in the next few decades, but that the planning decidedly involves round trips.
President Obama informed NASA last April that he "`believed by the mid-2030s that we could send humans to orbit Mars and safely return them to Earth. And that a landing would soon follow,'" said agency spokesman Michael Braukus.

No where did Obama suggest the astronauts be left behind.

"We want our people back," Braukus said.

Retired Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell, who walked on the Moon, was also critical of the one-way idea.

"This is premature," Mitchell wrote in an e-mail. "We aren't ready for this yet."
Davies and Schulze-Makuch say it's important to realize they're not proposing a "suicide mission."

In my view, anything other than one-way missions are foolish to consider given their cost and complexity. And, if people are willing to go--and I suspect there would be many volunteers--then we should do it. Perhaps a consortium of private and public resources would make it happen sooner than later.

Lastly, while today a mission that included a return flight would be enormously difficult, in coming years as Mars was colonized and local resources developed returns flights may become less daunting.

[DavidSupreme]

I think it is awesome, it is just some small things that concern me, well, many things, so one example of things concerning me:

We want to send/invest people to other planets whiles we have our current society with massive poverty, ignorance, violence and war..... Is the priorities wrong here, or what?

Another thing is if it is Nasa, they will then say that Mars is "American" (Or Russian, or European etc) or the Moon is "American" and so on not understanding that the only reason we could go there, to start with, was because of all the technologies WE, as a human species, manage to create. As long as we get territory/religious problems in our world, it will end bad.

Other then that, it is an awesome thing to do.

[barts]

We want to send/invest people to other planets whiles we have our current society with massive poverty, ignorance, violence and war..... Is the priorities wrong here, or what?

Another thing is if it is Nasa, they will then say that Mars is "American" (Or Russian, or European etc) or the Moon is "American" and so on not understanding that the only reason we could go there, to start with, was because of all the technologies WE, as a human species, manage to create. As long as we get territory/religious problems in our world, it will end bad.

Other then that, it is an awesome thing to do.

I agree, in principle, with your concern about priorities. However, it's very clear that in practice the priorities of "massive poverty, ignorance, violence and war" never take priority over the immediate financial well-being of the well-to-do and the developed countries. Having said that, it's worth noting that all monies spent on such a project would be spent here on Earth, not on Mars. These expenditures would create jobs for tens of thousands directly and indirectly.

Indeed, a Mars expedition budgeted at, say, $1 trillion (estimates range from $10 billion on up to $1 trillion) would certainly do more for the US economy than the usual wars, and those companies that now benefit from war have much of the technology to sell needed for a Mars program.

Personally, I would like to see a Mars expedition as one undertaken by humankind with individuals and companies represented from as many nations as possible. Let's call it a "Coalition of the Adventurous". I doubt, in fact, that in the absence of a "Cold War", any one country would undertake the project.

[DavidSupreme]

Personally, I would like to see a Mars expedition as one undertaken by humankind with individuals and companies represented from as many nations as possible. Let's call it a "Coalition of the Adventurous". I doubt, in fact, that in the absence of a "Cold War", any one country would undertake the project.

100% behind you on this.
But I am more positive then you, beside NASA that have been downgrading we got both JAXA (by Japan) and ESA (European Space Agency), and considering the Europeans are pretty much number one regarding technologies, I can see ESA, NASA and the Russian Space Agency actually come together, and even if NASA wouldn't, they would be the ones begging to be "forgiven" to get to enter later on as ESA would probably be able to get most of the worlds nations to chip in and "do something".

But as I said, priorities,

[Jack]

One-way trips of exploration are entirely feasible, and morally more acceptable, using robots instead of humans.

[barts]

One-way trips of exploration are entirely feasible, and morally more acceptable, using robots instead of humans.

I would suggest that it would technologically be more difficult to create a robot that could acquire the understanding that a group of humans could on a trip to Mars than it would be to send the people in the first instance. Having said that, having "robots" along on the trip that could perform various tasks would be eminently useful, and perhaps even necessary.

I don't see the moral implications or impediment of someone going on a one-way trip to Mars. It's their choice, after all. Whose to say that some people wouldn't rather live with some like-minded scientific, adventurous souls on Mars for the rest of their lives rather than in Scranton with members of local bridge club for the rest of their lives?

Goodness, many people don't think it immoral (I'm not one, I'm quick to add) to send young men and women off to a futile, unnecessary war for the rest of their lives which tends get very short or painful.

[Jack]

I'd go in a heartbeat, providing there was room for Cleo.

[SoylentGreen]

I would suggest that it would technologically be more difficult to create a robot that could acquire the understanding that a group of humans could on a trip to Mars than it would be to send the people in the first instance. Having said that, having "robots" along on the trip that could perform various tasks would be eminently useful, and perhaps even necessary.

I don't see the moral implications or impediment of someone going on a one-way trip to Mars. It's their choice, after all. Whose to say that some people wouldn't rather live with some like-minded scientific, adventurous souls on Mars for the rest of their lives rather than in Scranton with members of local bridge club for the rest of their lives?

Goodness, many people don't think it immoral (I'm not one, I'm quick to add) to send young men and women off to a futile, unnecessary war for the rest of their lives which tends get very short or painful.

I am curious as to what "the understanding" would be. An experience that could easily be simulated on earth

My opinion is that until an easy and affordable method of getting out of the bottom of a gravity well is discovered there is no point in going down to the bottom of one on another planet. Everything needed to survive can already be found in space. One of the best reasons for even going out as far as mars would be to mine the asteroid belt. And for that we are better off being in space than on the surface of a planet.

[barts]

I am curious as to what "the understanding" would be. An experience that could easily be simulated on earth

My opinion is that until an easy and affordable method of getting out of the bottom of a gravity well is discovered there is no point in going down to the bottom of one on another planet. Everything needed to survive can already be found in space. One of the best reasons for even going out as far as mars would be to mine the asteroid belt. And for that we are better off being in space than on the surface of a planet.

The fact is we don't know what there is to find out or understand. What we do know, however, is that whenever humankind has set out to explore what has been eventually discovered has always been beyond imagination and beyond current understanding.

I would also add that if all intelligent human life is about is surviving and nothing more, as you seem to imply, then what's the point of any inquiry into anything? Indeed, what's the point of human intellectual creativity and investigation at all, if all that's necessary is the need to survive. We can do that on a few patches of arable land.

It seems to me to be a moral affront to the whole notion of intelligent life not to explore and not to push the boundaries as far as possible. There's no point to intelligence, it seems to me, if in the name of base survival we stifle the highest and most noble expression (so far) of what life can achieve. When we fail to explore and query and learn we betray life. We might as well be dead, because we would serve no purpose.

[barts]

In my view, the most daunting problem we'd confront with people on one-way missions to Mars and beyond would be social structure and discipline.

Absent the knowledge of return and the social and legal accountability that entails, what would maintain discipline and purpose aboard the vessels to Mars? Can human decency and a common purpose be enough?

How would justice be handled among a small group of individuals, all of whom in the early years would be key to the group as a whole? How would emotional relationships be managed?

In my view, none of these can be fully prepared for during selection and training here on Earth. Once the vessels begin their one-way trip, the astronauts will have entered emotional and social Terra Incognito and all becomes unpredictable.

[grandpa]

In my view, the most daunting problem we'd confront with
people on one-way missions to Mars and beyond would
be social structure and discipline.
Absent the knowledge of return and the social and legal
accountability that entails, what would maintain discipline and purpose aboard
the vessels to Mars?

Much depends on the context of the discipline, and how we come through it, and who comes through it.

Grandpa h.

[SoylentGreen]

The fact is we don't know what there is to find out or understand. What we do know, however, is that whenever humankind has set out to explore what has been eventually discovered has always been beyond imagination and beyond current understanding.

We do know what we will find. There have been plenty of information sent back to us from unmanned probes. We have a fair idea of what mineral deposits there are.
But those same minerals could be found in the asteroid belt and would be far easier to mine there than on the surface of a planet.

I would also add that if all intelligent human life is about is surviving and nothing more, as you seem to imply, then what's the point of any inquiry into anything? Indeed, what's the point of human intellectual creativity and investigation at all, if all that's necessary is the need to survive. We can do that on a few patches of arable land.

It seems to me to be a moral affront to the whole notion of intelligent life not to explore and not to push the boundaries as far as possible. There's no point to intelligence, it seems to me, if in the name of base survival we stifle the highest and most noble expression (so far) of what life can achieve. When we fail to explore and query and learn we betray life. We might as well be dead, because we would serve no purpose.

I favour exploration as well but not pointless endeavours. Better to concentrate either on finding a cheap and reliable method of entering and leaving a gravity well or means to survive and setting up colonies in space and not worry about living on planets.

The present means of rocket ships are a deadend. To costly and we can never send up enough of a payload to make it worth the effort. Until a more reliable method of getting into space is found exploration of space will always be a dream.