A One-Way, One-Person Mission to Mars
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Will humans ever really go to Mars? Let’s face it, the obstacles are quite daunting. Not only are there numerous, difficult, technical issues to overcome, but the political will and perseverance of any one nation to undertake such an arduous task just can’t be counted on. However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite doable, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane’s proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person.
McLane worked at NASA for 21 years before leaving in 2007 to work for a private engineering firm. Being able to look from afar at NASA’s activities has given him a new perspective, he says.
But McLane was still at NASA when he originally had an idea for a one-way, one-person mission to Mars. He calls his proposal the “Spirit of the Lone Eagle," in deference to Charles Lindbergh’s solo flight from New York to Paris in 1927.
McLane’s idea came from his acquaintance with a Russian cosmonaut. “I noticed the cosmonaut seemed to be a slightly different type of person than the American astronaut," McLane said. “Cosmonauts are primarily pilots, and like test pilots, they are very focused on getting the job done. The current American astronauts are picked for things such as their speaking ability and social skills, and most of them have advanced degrees. But the cosmonaut struck me as an adventurous, get-things-done-type person, like our original astronauts back in the 1960’s."
A return to the “get it done" attitude of the 1960’s and a goal of a manned landing within a short time frame, like Apollo, is the only way we’ll get to Mars, McLane believes. Additionally, a no-return, solo mission solves many of the problems currently facing a round-trip, multiple person crew.
“When we eliminate the need to launch off Mars, we remove the mission’s most daunting obstacle," said McLane. And because of a small crew size, the spacecraft could be smaller and the need for consumables and supplies would be decreased, making the mission cheaper and less complicated.
While some might classify this as a suicide mission, McLane feels the concept is completely logical.
“There would be tremendous risk, yes," said McLane, “but I don’t think that’s guaranteed any more than you would say climbing a mountain alone is a suicide mission. People do dangerous things all the time, and this would be something really unique, to go to Mars. I don’t think there would be any shortage of people willing to volunteer for the mission. Lindbergh was someone who was willing to risk everything because it was worth it. I don’t think it will be hard to find another Lindbergh to go to Mars. That will be the easiest part of this whole program."
And like Apollo, such a mission would stimulate new technology and reinvigorate science. McLane feels a mission to Mars should be international in scope, encompassing contributions from multiple nations to represent a milestone for the whole human race.
“I think people have forgotten how exciting the Apollo program was, and this would bring that excitement back," he said. “And it wasn’t just here in the US; the whole world was excited. This enthusiasm would be the greatest effect of a program that places a man on Mars, over and above anything else, whether it makes jobs, or stimulates the economy, or creates technology spinoffs. We’re all humans and the idea of sending one of our kind on a trip like that would be a wonderful adventure for the entire world. The whole world would get behind it."
And the whole world would be watching, said McLane, so it wouldn’t be as if the lone astronaut would be completely by himself. “You would have constant communication," he said. “The astronauts on the International Space Station have an army of people on earth keeping track of what they are doing. They really have no peace. Somebody is constantly planning and monitoring their activities. I don’t think being lonely will be much of a problem on a mission to Mars."
Of course McLane’s hope is the solo astronaut would be joined by others shortly in the future. Orbital mechanics provides a desirable launch window from Earth to Mars every 26 months. “This person wouldn’t be there by himself for very long. It’s just returning home that would be impossible," he said. Another option McLane has offered is a one-man and one-woman crew, possibly creating an Adam and Eve-type situation.
Unmanned landers would carry living accommodations, supplies and communication equipment to Mars’ surface before the human mission would even launch. The best location on Mars would be a low, sheltered area, perhaps at the bottom of a canyon, which would provide protection from radiation and weather, as well as the highest possible atmospheric pressure.
While technical issues abound for even the simplest human mission to Mars, McLane says technical issues didn’t deter the Apollo program, and they shouldn’t deter a mission to another planet.
“I can remember during the early days of the Apollo program, there were even many more technical issues than we face today in going to Mars," said McLane. “People don’t realize that, or have forgotten that fact. Several things were tremendous unknowns back then, any one of which could have been a showstopper for a human moon landing."
McLane said the early designers of the Apollo spacecraft gambled that in 3 or 4 years, high powered transistors and small guidance computers would be developed. That was the only way the spacecraft would be lightweight enough to land on the moon. “It was almost science fiction, but someone thought it could be done in just a few years, and sure enough the technology was perfected in time to make the mission possible," he said.
Image: Jim McLane during his career at NASA.
While Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin and noted author and physicist Paul Davies have also advocated a one-way trip to Mars, in our risk-averse society most people look askance at such an idea.
Even though explorers in the past traveled, for example, to the south or north pole, knowing they might never return, and thousands of immigrants moved to the US in the 18- and 1900's, knowing they would never see their homeland again, the human psyche has seemingly changed enough that a one-way ticket off the planet is not acceptable. According to psychologist Molly Dooley from Springfield, IL, it might take a major crisis on Earth for humans to seriously consider such a mission. “Usually it’s the disenfranchised that are willing to take those kinds of risks," she said. “When our present situation no longer works for us, we become more willing to take risks. The difference between the folks who are interested and those who aren’t is their attachment to their current situation."
McLane says the main reason NASA hasn’t been able to focus on a human mission to Mars is simple: NASA doesn’t get nearly enough money. “This has been the case for many years," he said. “They didn’t get enough money to fix problems with the shuttle, and they’ve always been chronically short of money. How we fund NASA is a big handicap, since every year, NASA has to go begging to Congress for funds and justify their budget. The Chinese space program, on the other hand, has an advantage in that they budget their projects in five-year increments. If we really want to go somewhere, we’ll have to change how NASA gets its money."
But McLane thinks NASA is at fault for not even considering a one-way mission to Mars. “For over forty years they’ve studied all sorts of options, but haven’t admitted to ever looking at a one-way mission to Mars," he said. “We shouldn’t be stuck on this rock forever. I believe it’s in our human nature to try to go somewhere else, and we’ve almost worn this world out. I think now is the time to reach out and go somewhere else to start with a clean slate. There is no reason not to try."
Filed under: Mars
March 4th, 2008 at 7:02 am
"adam and eve"
yes sure, and then, if they have lets say a daughter, the father makes a new baby with her? or passes her on to the next astronaut going: "here man, lets start this freaking planet, have my daughter" infront of the whole human race..
makes me laugh
but the idea in general i do like
March 4th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I like the idea.
Perhaps it could be expanded to add an additional person or two every 26 months, along with more consumables and material to construct a greenhouse for growing food and producing Oxygen, and for other purposes, perhaps a low-power nuclear reactor or thermal battery could be added.
That way, an outpost for humanity could be established over a period of decades.
Something like that would indeed capture the imagination of mankind…and our children.
Although I am not qualified to go, I'd love to go!!!
March 4th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I don't see the problem with sending a rocket in 52 months (that's over 4 years!) that would get them back into orbit. (Remember Mars' lower gravity) Then a simple supply ship orbital transfer, and back to earth orbit. Can you imagine their welcome home? A one way trip is too depressing unless you really do intend on populating a real colony. Either way, what solid stuff they'd be made of to make that jump! You'd have to be assured of quite the camping gear when you got there. No Coleman stove for them!
March 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Why would a "one-way" trip now have to mean "forever" for the initial explorer(s)? We can assume that many of the problems currently associated with a round trip will be solved in the relatively near future. So in five or ten years, crews could be rotated every several years if necessary, including the first ones.
I think it's a very exciting strategy to get people there in the next five years.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Five years!!! Wow, optimistic! Even if there was a trip on the books!
Shouldn't that pic at the top have had its sky altered to orange? No blue skies on Mars!
Any volunteers? For the trip, I mean.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am
The previous posters are right. Send following one-way missions and build a colony. What a terrific idea!
I think it would capture the imagination of the entire Earth. We might make some progress towards a real and responsible world government.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Dear Earthlings,
Please remember to send an 'attractive lady' next time around, like in the attached photo. This plug-plug compatibility thing is just not working and Ted does not like the same films as me.
Regards,
Frank,
Mars
March 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
I liked the idea up until the last paragraph. We haven't "worn out" this planet. Nor would we be able to start with a "clean slate." People being what they are, we'd take all of our baggage with us….and in a much, much more harsh environment, humans would have far less margin for error.
That remark suggests to me that McLane doesn't actually have a very realistic idea of everything that our home planet provides for "free." The ecology that supports us is extremely complex and can't be reproduced with a few high-tech camping supplies. We would have to commit to not only sending the explorer there, but supporting him or her at great expense for the rest of his/her life. That, or providing supplies to make self-sufficiency possible, an additional problem that I don't see any planning for. More people means the problem gets bigger. Colonizing Mars needs to be a COMPLETE plan with a realistic assessment of what it would take. Otherwise it would just be a disaster and we would be sending people to their deaths.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Let's send Jim McLane on the first trip
March 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
this guy is an idiot. If we have no hope of bringing someone back dont go. i would not send my dog.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I like the idea… hate the analogies. Its nothing like immigrants coming to America knowing they'll never see their homeland… its more like diving to the Mariana Trench completely dependent on supplies from the surface and a harsh LETHAL environment just outside. But yeah, assuming it may still be possible to return and you can trust supplies to make it safely (the track record for sending things to Mars isn't to reassuring) and assuming there is protection from Martian dust storms and radiation, then yeah, this sounds like an excellent idea.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
A one-way, one-man mission to Mars is a bit pessimistic considering technology is ever-evolving. If a one-cosmonaut mindset is likely to get the job done, then surely, a two, three, or four of a like mindset would be even better.
Speaking of mindsets, if we keep up with this "NASA" mindset, we may just be limiting our selves from being open to uniquely radical approaches of venturing out to other places beyond Earth, in shorter periods of time, and, while having a roundtrip factored in.
There very well could be countless solutions to problems of this nature if we would just reach out more often to draw input from other sources.
The mindsets of cosmonauts aren't restricted to one group, you just have to seek them out.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I think it would be great to have a colony on mars. It could be an international project like the ISS that could be completed in segments over years. With different nations contributing different things.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I accept the risk. I'll volunteer to go.
I want 3 years supplies with power (a nuke) and equipment (stuff to get me kick started) to have a reasonable chance to stay warm, make my own air and grow my own food on Mars. And my shelter has to be mobile so I can spend the rest of my life exploring.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:45 am
A one way ticket to Mars may be logical, but what would be the point? At some time, you need to bring the guy home, so wating a few months and sending a second ship (with return capabilities) would be more expensive than just sending a round-trip ship to begin with.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
ha ha
to mars, when we can't even get to the moon.
lets stop these bogus ways to spend tax payers money.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:56 am
There is no way that NASA will ever launch towards Mars or the Moon anytime soon. A joint mission would be more realistic but I don't think we have what it takes to make the trip at least for 30 years.
That's why ISS is a very important test ground for various technologies to use for later missions.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:57 am
i can easily see the astronaut getting bored, then depressed, then insane, you know, cuz he's there alone for a while. constant communication? i don't know how long the delay is to send data to mars and back, but it can't be like talking on the phone. i guess he can keep himself bust, but once the guy's done all the initial setup, what's he going to do all day? collect samples? take pictures? play solitaire? maybe he should get a vehicle too, so at least he can move around. hehe, it's gotta be some real tough hardass who goes to mars.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Greetings from Portugal
I think we all should welcome any ideia on this and other subjects, no matter what each one of us thinks about it. I like this ideia, do not think Jim is an idiot and would volunteer to go in a heart beat.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
i ll go !!
i dont have a job … so i can go …
March 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
anyway im bored of this pale blue dot …
what do u think ? 60 kg 18 years old , russian nationality
im perfect for this mission
March 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
This is not exactly a new idea. During the cold war race to the moon a one-way mission was considered to get to the moon first, mostly because of the possible technical limitations mentioned in the post. (I think it was mentioned on NOVA, but I'm not entirely certain…) Sure, they probably would have tried to retrieve the astronaut at a later date if possible, but chances were high that it could have been a terminal one-way mission.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Sadly, I like this bitter sweet idea as well. We would learn so much
I would like it better if it were entirely hopeless.
A one time, one person mission with a finite amount of supplies, and a final solution for the ending.
Great sci-fi read.
We have seen in recent times many of us who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for beliefs.
In reality the individual is not as important as the group.
We would find many volunteers.
The sacrifice would in no way be meaningless. The moment of launch would be heart wrenching. Incredible.
Hex
March 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
One-way trip? Bold, very much in the spirit of 'grand adventure' but not really comparable to anything we've done before. I like the idea, but would like to see some consideration of in-situ resource utilization for a return vehicle — no need, perhaps to send it right away, but at least send the astronaut with enough equipment to determine the best way to go about that so we can build a suitable return vehicle to send at a later date…even if we went with the incremental colonization idea, some chance of return (not to mention the tech benefits from ISRU) seems almost necessary, at least highly desirable.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Sounds like a great idea, except the whole "no return" thing.
As a space enthusiasts, I would not want my tax dollars spent on "one way missions."
Remember, Mars is a lot harsher than Earth climate wise, and a death there would create enough controversy to kill the whole program in the future until the Chinese build an outpost there.
While two people are better, I think building colonies with groups of people (not to mention a way to exit Mars if things go wrong) would find more support world wide.
March 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
It's "do or die", not "do and die". Society does not send people on suicide missions unless other lives are on the line. Those who go on suicide missions for glory win only Darwin awards.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
*signs up* Why not ?
March 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
See also a Space.com report on the Australian Mars Exploration Conference of 2001:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/mars_society_conference_010515-2.html
"Hoffman also stunned the audience with the suggestion that maybe human missions to Mars should be one-way trips. He said that the resources needed for the return trip would be better spent on establishing a permanent base…"
March 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The guy or girl would go completely insane. The book Red Mars of the Mars trilogy does a pretty reasonable job of analysing the probable psychology and psychotic reactions that many would suffer in such a situation. The fact that there would be only one or two people there would only exacerbate the effects to my mind.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
It COULD happen, but not with US tax dollars. Americans tend to think more of kamikaze, or terrorism than fearless exploration when they hear 'one-way mission'. Wouldn't that be state-sanctioned assisted suicide?
Plus, the idea of sending out more to meet the 'lone eagle' is self-defeating. If that were affordable, why not build a few mega-ships that could go round-trip? What's the hurry, anyway.
BUT, somewhere offshore, with billions of dollars, it COULD happen…
The flight would break all previous manned speed records and would still take years. Some type of induced coma would benefit the solo pilot… Perhaps one day we will see cybernetic advances like direct links to the astronauts' retinas and vocal chords… digestive systems replaced by devices that administer liquid nutrients and recycle water…
Since the astronaut has nothing to lose, why not go all the way and send a ROBOCOP? You'd get twice as many applicants!
Can science alter a human to withstand extreme environments, live without standard food, never get lonely?
I think we'll be sending robots for a while. Maybe someday robots with a tangle of neurons, but robots just the same.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You all should check out Bob Zubrin's Mars Direct plan (detailed in the book "The Case for Mars") which is totally do-able without the need for a modern-day Robinson Crusoe. Zubrin is the founder of The Mars Society and NASA eventually (reluctantly) adopted many elements of the Mars Direct approach for its own plans (after the $450 Billion fiasco proposed in the eighties).
March 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
In fact, upon closer examination, I'm pretty sure the reason the sky is blue in the accompanying photo is just that - it's a photo of a Mars Society volunteer at the Mars Desert Research Station - not an artistic rendering!
March 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Actually, upon even closer examination, I think the photo may actually be from the Mars Arctic Research Station (M.A.R.S. - get it?) on Devon Island in Canada. Either way, The Mars Society has been doing this on a strictly donor/volunteer basis for about a decade now and has been invaluable in advancing the know-how needed for humanity to make the jump to being a multi-planet species.
As Dr. Zubrin once told me, "Let's Make This Happen!".
March 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
What if the lone astronaut has an accident and becomes seriously injured. What if they develop appendicitis and need emergency surgery? What if some catastrophic mechanical failure to equipment occurs? What of the unexpected hazards? I would be in favor of sending a lone astronaut or small crew so long as some means of returning to Earth had been pre-launched and ready for assembly on Mars when that person(s) got there.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I remember reading something very similar in a short story by Stephen Baxter.
Honi soit….
IMO they should scratch the Mars programme.
Send more bots, and start exploring Europa and Titan!
March 4th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
love the idea,
I will even volunteer,
I can't think of a higher cause… then the attempt to establish a foot hold on another planet.
Regards
Sam H
March 4th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Its no different then any other explorer at any onther time in history. There is a risk involved to the human drive for expansion/exploration/finding the unkown. But its driven us to where we are today. I see no unacceptable reason to not do this. Send a few to start, and with every other shipment sent more ppl and supples.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
It seems to me that if we have the technology to keep someone alive on another planet for an extended period of time, than we would have enough technology to return that explorer home. So doesn't this make the one way argument meaningless?
March 4th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
@ George,
To qoute Tennyson: "Theirs is not to wonder why,/ Theirs is but to do and die,"
Which, while not an analogous situation, does show that folks have been glad to have been sent to their deaths for much less reason than exploration.
To quote Tennyson again, in a much better example of the explorer in question: "'Tis not too late to seek a newer world./ Push off, and sitting well in order smite/ The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds/ To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths/ Of all the western stars, until I die."
And also from the poem "Ulysses", the final line
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
Perhaps a bit of an agressive finish, but the sentiment is noble. There are certainly qualified people who would undertake such a quest, knowing that the most likely, if not only, close is a death far from home. I think the largest gulf is getting over the idea that a person in such a situation must be afforded the power to take their own life by merciful means if such a need should arise.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
So long as I'm allowed to bring my PlayStation, golf clubs, and a bottle of Scotch I'd be set!
I think the biggest issue with this plan will be the loneliness, this astronaut would need to be one special individual. A huge amount of time would need to be spent researching the psychological impact of such a mission…
It's a great thought though…
March 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
A great idea , especially with the possibility of 'top-ups' every 26 months. Technology is likely to advance quickly as it did with the Apollo program, so a return from Mars maybe possible some time in the future, just not at the present.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I've long thought that this was the job for me. It's too bad the opportunity is so long in coming, at least for me, since you'd probably want someone younger.
However, I suppose it would depend on the amnaities one could bring along. Could anyone grow tired of the view ? I doubt I would, and I'm certain there would be more to do on such a mission than to admire the starscape.
I have not read the related article yet, and perhaps it will discourage me, and I a may not be in suffcient healtth for such a venture, although I am fairly healthy.
I had to respond, I would not forgive myself for not having at least tried !
Good luck and keep me posted !
March 5th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I've long thought that this was the job for me. It's too bad the opportunity is so long in coming, at least for me, since you'd probably want someone younger.
However, I suppose it would depend on the amenities one could bring along. Could anyone grow tired of the view ? I doubt I would, and I'm certain there would be more to do on such a mission than to admire the starscape.
I have not read the related article yet, and perhaps it will discourage me, and I a may not be in sufficient health for such a venture, although I am fairly healthy.
I had to respond, I would not forgive myself for not having at least tried !
Good luck and keep me posted !
I have not read the related article yet, and perhaps it will discourage me, and I a may not be in suffcient healtth for such a venture, although I am fairly healthy.
I had to respond, I would not forgive myself for not having at least tried !
Good luck and keep me posted !
March 5th, 2008 at 12:52 am
I'm not certain if this is just my system, but the "Submit" button keeps returning to the same page.
You may have two copies of my reponse ?
Good luck in this venture !
Charles Lee
March 5th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I can think of a few politicians i'd like to see volunteer…
March 5th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Sounds great pick me, I need to get away from the wife and kids for a while. But seriously why is that we as a people labour over the concept of risky exploration, if we dont stop wringing our hands and vasilating now will we summon the courage to try. I seem to remember a quote (paraphrased) by a visionary, "that only those that dare to fail greatly ever achieve greatly".
March 5th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Has anybody read the Mars Trilogy, from Kim Stanley Robinson? It's all there, you know. Complete plan for colonization, no other way around it.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:14 am
And what if they changed their minds and wanted to return?
What a soap opera: TV stations pay loads to air their dying entreaties.
This is not the way to start the history of planetary colonisation.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:09 am
I think 1 way trips to mars with two person
crews consisting of one man, and one woman who intend to live on mars on a long term basis is good idea .
tim
March 5th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Give me the latest gaming system and a renewable power source, and I'll gladly fly away to Mars and spend the rest of my life playing Halo. Wait… No multiplayer? Okay, Metal Gear Solid then.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:36 am
So, what's the guy going to do there that a robot can't at far less cost?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:39 am
I don't like the thought of a one way one person flight.
I do see that NASA has a major funding problem, which can be fixed.
I also believe that shortsightedness was built into the american political system to prevent centralisation of power in the hands of a few powerful people or groups.
This results in wasteful lobbying when the money could be better used.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:48 am
I wonder if I can put my kids up for the mission? Then finally there would be peace on Earth!!!
March 5th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Robots…..robots….send robots!
March 5th, 2008 at 3:55 am
If pepole are willing to do this in full knowledge of the risks, then by all means, there's no reason, apart from budgetary, that they should be allowed to go.
There are practical & psychological implications, of course, but that is why test pilots/military personnel or those with a military background, would be far more suited to this sort of mission.these were exactly the same considerations during the Apollo missions & to an extent, the early Shuttle missions. All exploration involves risks, not least that you may die even before leaving the ground. (remember, we're essentially asking people to go into space sitting in, essentiall, giant firecrackers).
March 5th, 2008 at 3:59 am
What about a one-way trip first, followed by a similar mission to Apollo - quick decend and return?
We could send an 'explorer' go into the Mar 'wilderness' to perform science and collect rock samples, i.e. study things. Shortly after, you could mission with return trip capacity to return the person and those rock samples.
Simpliy the mission - one man (or woman) goes first (decent only capacity), then an unmanned mission follows, which deliveres a lander with return capacity to 'collect' the person and samples. If the person were to sucome to some illness etc, don't send the return mission.
One only needs to consider the extreme technical issues supporting science missions in Antartica. A few years ago, a female scientist developed breast caner and had to perform her own medical tests and procedures because she could not get outside assistance.
Just think what would occur if the sole crew memeber developed Cancer or similar?
March 5th, 2008 at 4:05 am
A one-way trip to Mars is a very, very long-duration (~ 180 days) mission. Hundreds of behavioural studies on Earth (conducted in environments such as remote Antarctic stations, submarines) and in space (conducted on Mir and currently on the ISS) show that individuals (working alone or together) just won't hack it — take a look at these quotes:-
"All one needs to effect a murder is to lock two men together in a cabin for upto two months."; Interpersonal distrust, dislike, misunderstanding and poor communication have led to potentially danderous situation."; "I miss my family, news from home, and hearing English been spoken."
The studies also show several issues have yet to be determined for a successful mission to Mars — leadership, crew compatibility, gender, age, heterogeneity (male/female astronauts working together)…etc., are just a few.
Leadership: A leader must be capable of performing task and socioemotional leadership roles; capable of focussing on the interaction of structural and personality variables, rather than upon either variable alone; and have a full understanding of his crew – emotionally, socially and physically.
Crew compatibility: Crewmembers must be capable of engaging in a wide variety of social behaviours; have shared attitudes and values to enforce group compatibility and ‘like-mindedness’. If one crewmember, for example, is skilled in an area in which the other person is unskilled, or has knowledge that the other must learn from or rely upon, then this is a crew whose consequences can only promote solidarity and high morale.
Age: Astronauts will not have to be selected from a narrow range of ages. For example, while a younger aged person would have peak energy and physical fitness to their advantage, an older person would have experience and perspective, and his maturity could also act as a parent-surrogate who satisfies important needs of the younger crewmember.
Gender: Most studies done today involve males only and extremely little is known about the values of having a mixed crew on such long journeys. Some instances where a crew consisted of a single woman with several men onboard reported gender stereotyping (men taking unnecessary risks to impress women or women faking helplessness in the presence of men). Other instances showed greater difficulties with females trying to exert a leadership role, and in one case a female crewmember had to act as peacemaker in a leadership conflict between two male co-members.
Heterogeneity: Spacecrews in the future will likely be composed of heterogeneous groups – people from different countries, with different cultural traditions and values, with different career backgrounds. A heterogeneous crew offers potential advantages over a homogenous one, as their combined diversity presents more alternative perspectives and greater richness in skills and experience – offering a greater effectiveness of problem-solving and decision-making amongst the group.
And that's all before we even get to solve the technical issues of actually landing on the martian surface.
This one-way mission sounds good on paper, but, realistically, the person(s) would have to be very special indeed.
John — http://www.moonposter.ie
Moon News: http://www.moonposter.ie/news.htm
March 5th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Gate Keepers — that's what stops it.
That the idea resonates well with Jo Publius, but doesn't happen because of 'society's values' indicates a schism between the popular imagination and whomever self-appointed guardian of our 'values' it is that it is who is trying to guide public opinion in this (and other such) matters. I personally would go if either i were terminal (e.g. with incurable cancer) or i had a reasonable assurance that my support would follow through.
Also, it was not an absolute given that the New World settlers could never return. Technically this was not the case. It was within the realm of possibility (as it would be for our lone vanguard). But, the earliest European settlers in America were committed to the idea that they might never return.
There is a nice correlativity between the first Martian 'settlers' and, say, the New World settlers of Shakespeare's time (as i analogise McLane's vision).
~Neila Joan
P.S: any tacit agreement (which may [or may not] have existed) betwixt the people who already lived in 'America' and the Europeans is another topic entirely.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Great Idea!! By the way what's the need of 1-way-mission?? If NASA has limited funds, it can always explore the world for it. As such the whole world has gone mad after new Lunar missions. US (once again), China and India are in the race. China & India are planning separate missions to Mars. What's the need? Why cant all get together and explore 2-ways mission to Mars?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:31 am
China will be there first. The first the west will know about it will be the announcement after the launch.
Just imagine a factory on mars run by the Chinese. They could employ lots of cheap labour to build the equipment needed to build a proper setlement for NASA and ESA.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:52 am
I would like to volunteer my husband for a one-way trip to Mars. TY
March 5th, 2008 at 6:02 am
A one-way trip might save some money, but it would still be a colossal waste of funds. The required budget would be comparable to the total public expenditures for all research. Since when does planetary geology deserve as much funding as all of biology, physics, chemistry, materials science, etc? What would we learn from studying Mars in detail? Not much that we don't already know, and certainly nothing about fundamental scientific questions. What new technologies would be developed? None that we really need here on earth. As for the "exploration" aspect, let's not kid ourselves. The public would very quickly lose interest in the adventures of a bunch of people endlessly diddling around in a landscape that look a lot like the American Southwest, but not as attractive. Don't forget that we already have detailed information about a large fraction of the surface of Mars, so there is no analogy to discovering a new continent on Earth. Don't forget also that Mars would be a dead end: there is nowhere to go in the Solar System after that.
As for the idea of "terraforming" Mars - surely it's one of the loopiest ever conceived. If there is one thing that we have learned from the study of the Earth's complexities, it's that you don't ever try to make transformations on a planet-wide scale - you will fail miserably.
I'm assuming of course, that there is no life on Mars. If there is (that is, if the robotic missions find it) - then by all means let's go study it.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:12 am
The massive response alone agrees with now being a good time to pursue a lone wolf shot at Mars. Picking the candidate will be pure hell.
A suicide run ain't gonna cut it. We will be obligated to resupply Alpha until his demise, Or, certainly try.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:16 am
What!? - Do we really need another Zubrin?
This guy is simply wacko!
I completely agree with the psychologist – We do need some serious motivation to leave this planet in an attempt to preserve the human race. But without further advances in technology, any attempt we make now, would be a futile one (a last desperate attempt). – Unfortunately, we’re still in the technological stone-age.
Any one-way mission to Mars really would be a “suicide� mission despite the final paragraphs alluding to a minute hope of survival and companionship by “air drops� (there would be none!). Furthermore, if humanity really did find a person willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of historical prosperity; could we really hold out much hope that the potentially depressed or insane individual would be able to complete any useful mission objectives in the face of his inevitable demise?
Maybe we could live on Marshrooms!?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:12 am
The comparisons to earlier explorations are not really valid. While climbing Mt. Everest and traveling to the poles was occasionally a one-way expedition (due to illness/accident/poor planning), they were never planned to be one-way. Cross-continental trips and immigration do not really count as one-way - the ability to return existed (turn the wagon/ship around), they just usually did not want to. Early settlers may have gone into the untracked wilderness, but they were not moving to a hostile environment (hostile natives, perhaps). Nobody moves to the North Pole with no plans of returning (once the research is done).
A solo trip also it not very wise. As has been pointed out a few times above - too many accidents, medical issues and other unforeseen circumstances can be fatal solo.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
This is an incredible idea! We should definatley think about it! When I'm 35 and this has been going so long you just hop on a shuttle and go, I'm bringing my WHOLE family!
-geniusgirl_123
KissKiss!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Where are the adventurous individuals? Those willing to take the chance. Most everyone sits on on their fat rears and never
dare anything. Is this normal or desireable?
If man does not move forward, he will slide
back, devolve. I never finished my master's in physics but I have kept pursuing knowledge including the possibliities of one way travel to Mars. Modern electronic and fifty
year olf technology and a lot of hard work could do it. Look at the tech of the Russian
R-6 booster and the history of its developement. There is no escuse for not being there now.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I have *always* thought the only real sense of a mars mission meant one-way. One-way means you start building an outpost. You don't go, visit and come back only to never go again due to a change in the political landscape. If there is a person, or people there, then there will continue to be an impetus to go. You can't abandon your brave explorers!
Imagine the reality TV that would create! Imagine how much we will learn about Mars by having a person that lives there? Sure, every 26 months a new package arrives, with a new person, or couple, and slowly overtime we *will* have martians…. and (to quote Bradbury) they will be us.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It should be at least 2 humans preferrably a man and women, we need to get rid of this timid sprirt we've have going and get back to being adventorous,like in the 60's, Nasa has done and invented many grat things we use in our dailey lives,we need to get back to that before its to late.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I agree with Mr. Owen and Derek, forget Mars when we can't even do the Moon.
'Pilgrem Project' a novel by Frank Searle was turned in to a film with James Caan yonks ago. It was based on a real 'one-way-trip' to beat those pesky commies to the Moon. Its nothing new and won't happen. Imagine the TV ratings if/when his food/air ran out, the TV syndicates would pay millions to watch/hear his slowly die and you sickos would watch + what would happen if he had a major accident, broken leg/arm, appendix? Come on get real and stop talking bollox. The idea is sick and has nothing to do with REAL space exploration.
0/10 Try Harder…
March 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am
hey I think an adventure to Mars is something that will happen, given the right length of time, but it is going to cost alot and that money doesn't just come from thin air. It is tax payer money and we already have a trillion dollar war, isn't that enough. This guy needs to get his head out of the clouds, if he wants to go let him spend his own money and leave mine alone!!
March 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Can we volunteer George Bush to take this trip?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The astronaut ought to be disabled individual who is comfortable with a catheter, colostomy bag, confined to a wheel chair but capable of operating joy sticks and buttons. He or she would be more comfortable in weightless space and far more capable of dealing with the deprivations of long duration space travel. Build them a chair that they can wear and forget about this "he man" astronaut stuff. They are unlikely to cut it with all the extended discomforts of the transit.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
[...] March 5th, 2008 Here's an idea: A One-Way, One-Person Mission to Mars [...]
March 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
This has to be a joke. Why would you want to go to Mars knowing that you would never retun. Yes this is a suicidal mission. At least climbing a mountain by yourself people know when to expect you back and if you're back by that time they'll go looking for you. What happens if there's something wrong with the shuttle? Why couldn't you send at least 1 more person to go? Just because you can communicate with someone millions of miles away from you doesn't mean your not alone because yes you are. Lets put you on an island for youself with nothing but food to eat and you can talk all you want to whoever adn don't tell me you won't feel alone. You would probably start to go crazy or depressed and the mission would be a downfall.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
P.S. - Lets send McLane if he thinks this would be great for mankind.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Peter K.,
Mars does have blue skies.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
A trip to Mars? It looks like a waste of tax money. A Mars trip, assuming it succeeds, would most likely benefit a small scientific group's curiosity. It is doubtful any real benefit beyond a few simple devices would befall the working man. Yes, I concede there will be sensors and other marginally useful gadgets developed that could be argued a benefit. I suspect a far more economical and practical way of exploring Mars would be future generation robots. Why? Because robots are not as fragile as humans for an extended space trip. Robots can handle radiation and biolife support system failures much much better than humans can. A robot delivery vehicle would be so much simpler to develop than build a reliable "piece of earth environment" space ship for a one or two-way trip. Also trying to survive in a hostile environment like Mars most likely will result in a disasterious failure. There are just to many unknowns. I suspect a Mars project will only produce a hand full of paychecks and a huge amount of pork-barrel profit for a few at the expense of many.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Imagine if the US put the amount it spent so far on the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq towards a manned mission to Mars…
March 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
A colossal cleanup of our good old dear planet is a lot cheaper than a galactic search for habitation. And there is no quarantee that the new hospitable place is not prone to abuse, remember we all are humans, the scorn of the planet earth. For once let us assume we are all alone (logical but foolhardy) in this universe and preserve what is truly ours, our planet.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
[...] to Mars by yourself to be known as the first human ever to travel to, and then die on, Mars? [Universe Today via Danger [...]
March 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Some of the views expressed about this topic are truly unbelievable. It's scary to think they get to cast one vote in the next election just like me.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I'd do it absolutely!
March 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
[...] to Mars by yourself to be known as the first human ever to travel to, and then die on, Mars? [Universe This day via Danger [...]
March 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
[...] via Universe Today] Published by RE in [...]
March 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
You guys know that NASA is currently working on going back to the Moon by 2030 and Mars by 2050 right? I've worked there for a few summers (and others in my family work there), and almost all of my projects and research dealt with the new Exploration plan. They've already decided to build Orion, retire the shuttle, and are currently designing new EVA suits, vehicles, etc. Just FYI, it's going to happen in our lifetimes, so get excited.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
And btw, John, people already live on the ISS for around six months, so the bit about committing murder after two is just plain ignorant, like many of the other comments. They're not dumb or even illogical, just ignorant.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
The perfect candidate would be a man in his 20's that just broke up with his girlfriend….he wants off the planet and never wants to run into her again!!!!
March 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mars is a place with no air to breathe, no water to drink and no food to eat. Its atmosphere is too thin to offer protection against cosmic and solar radiation. It is an awfully cold place, but you can´t start a fire to warm you up, as there is nothing to burn and no oxygen in the air. The soil is rich in agressive peroxides and salts. And there is no water to take a shower to wash that biting dust from the skin. No washing machine, no water supply, no toilet, no shop to buy things in case of need, and nobody available to help in time if help is needed.
The people of the past who went out on journeys and expeditions had a good chance to survive: Wherever they went, they could expect to find air to breathe, some water available, a food supply of some kind, a place to sleep in peace and safety, and a chance to meet someone beautyful. And something worthwhile to tell from when returning.
If you send people one-way to Mars, you evidently do so to save the money it costs you to bring them back. By doing so you tell that person that you think him or her dispensable.
Who goes out to Mars will find him or herself in a very harsh, stressing and hopeless situation for the rest of his or her life.
We are not designed to spend the time of our life within a spacesuit, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days per year, and year by year. Especially not if there is no spacesuit repair service at hand. And of course no spacesuit shop for kids of any size. And no spaceproof diapers.
You can´t breathe martian air. It is far too thin, and it contains no oxygen. You can´t grow plants on Mars to produce oxygen. There is no rainfall, as liquid water boils at 0°C, due to the low atmospheric pressure.
If you take out your spacesuit on Mars, you blood starts to boil. A tiny hole in the suit will have the same effect on you. This is not the type of place that can make you feel yourself at home.
Although Mars has nice places on the first look, Mars is not a place for our kind.
Regards,
Günther
March 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Who says a Mars trip has to be a suicide mission?
You send a person in a one way rocket.
You send another one way rocket with supplies and 1/2th of the equipment needed to construct a return vehicle.
You could keep sending one way rockets until Mars has enough personnel and equipment to build their own return vehicle and come back.
Eventually you end up with a colony on Mars, continually moving people and equipment via cheap one-way vehicles.
And nobody has to die.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
One way missions to Mars are inhuman, the moral issues surrounding ‘Laika’ until today are a black mark on the ethical standards of the USSR‘s scientific community. It was not until 1998, after the collapse of the Soviet regime, that Oleg Gazenko, one of the scientists responsible for sending Laika into space, expressed regret for allowing her to die: "The more time passes, the more I'm sorry about it. We shouldn't have done it… We did not learn enough from this mission to justify the death of the dog." If a deliberate death of a street stray dog cannot be accepted as a collateral payoff for scientific research, how a human being can be left to die with no chance of retrieval? Sputnik 2 was not designed to be retrievable, so Laika had always been intended to die.
Laika (from Russian: Лайка, a breed of dog, literally: "Barker" or "Howler", c. 1954 - 1957) was a Russian space dog which became the first recorded living creature from Earth to enter orbit. At one time a stray wandering the streets of Moscow, she was selected from an animal shelter. Originally named Kudryavka (Russian: кудрÑ?вка, literally: "Little Curly-Haired One"), she was renamed Laika. . She was a mongrel female, approximately three years old, and weighed about 6 kg. Sputnik 2 was not designed to be retrievable, so Laika had always been intended to die. After the success of Sputnik 1, Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader, wanted a second spacecraft launched on November 7, the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. A more sophisticated satellite was already under construction, but it would not be ready until December; this satellite would later become Sputnik 3.
After undergoing training with two other dogs, she was selected to be the occupant of the Soviet spacecraft Sputnik 2 and was launched into space on November 3, 1957.
Laika died a few hours after launch from stress and overheating, probably due to a malfunction in the thermal control system. The true cause of her death was not made public until decades after the flight.
The ethical problems of this experiment went largely unaddressed for some time. As newspaper clippings from 1957 show, the press was more preoccupied with reporting the political perspective, while the health and retrieval (or lack thereof) of Laika was hardly mentioned. Only later were there discussions regarding the fate of the dog.
The mission sparked a debate across the globe on the mistreatment of animals and animal testing in general to advance science.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Anyone who think it's a good idea, do a search on the internet for "yogic flying." Those are real photos. How is this possible? Simple…develop the state of enlightenment, the highest state of consciousness, the seventh state. Look at http://www.tm.org, http://www.mum.edu.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
the doom guy has already been there and owned those fools.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I'd go, especially if it were a one man operation. It's been my dream since I first looked up at the stars (cliche, I know), to set foot on another planet. I'd love the solitude, the small scale gardening to start changing the atmosphere, the knowledge that everything I did there would some day go to aide future colonists. What I'd REALLY hate is if it were a 20 or 30 person mission, or less, and I disliked half of them. At least on Earth there's always another crowd to melt into. On Mars there'd only be so many places in the colony to go to get away from someone.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Laika? Oh, please. Laika didn't have the capability to refuse. If a human went on a one way trip, it would be by choice, with full understanding of the consequences. So the proposal is neither imorral, nor inhumane.
As for yogic "Flying"? Bumpin ya butt for yoga isn't flying.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
This sounds great.
Of course this has been done before. ¿You know how many returned from the first trip around the world? 18, out of 260 who sailed out.
Send a geologist to that Great Canyon place, with a microscope. He would become the first field areologist. Founding a science. Wow. He would be the envy of any scientist.
I have seen calculations that during the first decades after Columbus, the people that actually moved from Europe to America were just a few each year. A trip starts with a first step…
March 5th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The lone astronaut eventually WOULD come back, because as technology evolves exponentially, returning him home will become trivial in a couple decades.
What I like about this plan is that, by placing this hero on Mars, we would be committing future administrations to keep him supplied, and to eventually return him home. His presence there will drive the effort to colonize Mars.
Ervin
March 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
THis is the idea, I have read some SF with this idea and it should be done, here that you NASA drones, DO IT!
March 5th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Their comparisons to leaving a country or going to the north pole are pretty bad.
In each, there was/were
1) hope for return, and
2) other people there
March 5th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
One MAN and a ration of 10 women selected for their sexual characteristics, which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
This is insane! This would be a suicide mission. I think McLane's been exposed to too many cosmic rays.
We are hundreds of years from even thinking of colonizing Mars, let alone in those tin cans that we're building as spaceships currently.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The person who goes could stay in geo stationary orbit and remotely control a robot (via high speed full on Virtual Reality type interface) on the surface in real time. Much easier to get them back.
However that said. I'd rather we expand the ISS, deploy large telescopes in space and accelerate the planet search program.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Man. You know exactly what the Chinese will do in order to get to Mars?
Yep, you betcha - this exact plan - and they will beat us there.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
What I can't understand is why we aren't prepping a robot mission right now. Today. We know already plenty of ways to get *something* in the way of supplies there and we know how to send robots that would, at the least, dig a shelter, start collecting water, and purify a few thousand liters of oxygen and other useful raw materials. Or to be still more modest, send a few tiny surveying robots. Tiny, slow moving, solar powered beasties sending their data to a booster for retransmission to earth.
Seems to me like we should just bloody well choose a promising landing spot, choose *something* we can build with today's technology, and get some kind of payload on the way in, say, the next six months. And then keep sending them. Every. Six. Months. Or more frequently as we figure out what we're doing and/or round up more funding. Worst case scenario, the human mission will land at another site, in which case they'll still have supplies a hell of a lot closer than earth.
Small missions like this would actually work better if they were private. Which seems far smarter to me anyway. Then they bill NASA for supplies when the NASA mission finally shows up.
But the longer we wait to start, the longer it will take to get this going. Doesn't it make more sense to start with one robot crew to work as explained above, another to do more of the same and build a clear, airtight enclosure and make growing medium, and then the third to turn the first enclosure into a high-density greenhouse, (or two or three separated ones with different flora) all started from seed? If it also devotes some effort to purifying fuel, well, hey, who says they need to carry that much fuel?
Plenty of people are working on the technologies and enough are ready now. No, they're not "just right", but right now is far better than just right afaic. Let's just get our butts in gear and get some useful materials on the way NOW.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Two last comments. Yes, I am well aware of the limitations of current robots. But we still have plenty of devices that can run for years if done right. Think of it as a codesign between the Long Now folks and Rodney Brooks' lab. Maybe this means two really tough robots; maybe it means a hundred ones the size of your thumb, of which half will "die" within six months. But one way or another, it means that while we sit around here on earth planning the human mission, work is already underway to make Mars a more habitable place.
And next, I ask you to ask yourself some questions.
1- how small a payload could be of use? Two kilos? Five? A solar panel hooked up to a simple but slow crude ore digger and refiner? And when it's done you've got the metal to reuse. Keep in mind, no communications with earth beyond a once a month ping.
2 - how large a rocket would it take to get that on the way on the most "thrifty" trajectory?
3 - How much would that cost to buy at surplus? say, an old ICBM? And to refit?
4 - What fraction of a decimal place is this amount compared to the cost of sending THE SAME MASS IN A HUMAN OPTIMIZED VEHICLE?
Sorry about "yelling", but my point is that even if the frickin' thing doesn't work worth a damn, it's still cheaper, kilo for kilo, than waiting and shipping the same mass along with the human mission. Not to mention the things we learn simply from increasing the number of iterations we accumulate of getting stuff to Mars at all. There is no down side.
Seems to me like a perfect project for an ambitious and underrespected college engineering program partnered with a corporation looking to burnish their public image.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Sign me up, please.
I am ready.
I like to get things done. You want this done? Send me up.
I have no family - no parents, no kids, nobody.
I am willing, able and simply ready to this.
Send me up now before I get too old. I've probably got 20 years left before I get too old, so ready that rocket for me.
Thanks
March 6th, 2008 at 12:28 am
i can do it and i will Volunteer if anyone is looking for such a person, i study psychology and im in perfect mental and phisical shape to do it. i know i can handle few years alone.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Humans are able explorers, and we have not done any exploring in quite awhile. A privately funded mission by one of our numerous billionaires with the hope of resupply in ten or fifteen years with money donated by all those viewing the live feeds from helmet cams, drones, rovers ect. Children growing up participating in science projects with that lone Martian should make for a large pool of very interested future Martians…
March 6th, 2008 at 1:20 am
I believe that by the time we will be technically ready for this mission we will also be able to send a large multicultural unborn population with the mission in tubes. Of course this would require more from the base in order to support little childrens needs, but it's the only reasonable way to avoid all the problems related to the Adam & Eve scenario. Remember these martian born people would not be related so many problems would solve themselves. It also avoids the mental issues related to loneliness and knowledge of no return. Even 2 people would not be enough to avoid those issues. There would have to be a larger population very soon and this population can be brought in compact format
March 6th, 2008 at 1:51 am
<>
Absolutely she could not say no but many humans want to die but the society norms until today does not allow euthanasia.
The underlying ‘Hippocratic code’ for medical and scientific advancement demands that we make sure as a society that we don’t make deliberate decisions to send anyone with a one way ticket to certain death, we should have odds to bring them back in our favour.
The very reason we had an ethical debate on Laika was the hallmark of our achievements as human beings. The respect and importance of life of an individual who may be willing for such a one way journey is a call that society at large has to make, of course for self glory thousands may agree to take that hypothetical journey but we as society should not allow.
A deliberate attempt to ‘destroy human life’ even with full eagerness of the party concerned is what the most medieval minds are playing on today, this is what is known in the world of puritanical ideology as suicide missions, we should condemn any effort to destroy human life deliberately, that right is the most sacrosanct right we as humanity should and have taken pride in..
Martian mission have always encourage lot of fiction, we grew up expecting aliens from Mars, that dead piece of real estate is not much of an interest against the backdrop of challenges which humanity faces on this earth. The man on one way ticket to Mars shall not be our Columbus or Vasco de Gama. The final frontier is mankind itself, as a part of most complex creation so far known within the entire universe every characteristic and facet of our constructive evolution has to be safeguarded.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:06 am
There's a huge logistical difference between a one-way and a two-way trip. So huge that it makes a one-way trip appealing. Here's an analogy: You want to take a bike trip to the other side of a mountain. The problem is, the mountain is so rugged that a single trip will ruin your bicycle. You start at the base of the mountain, where you have lots of help and supplies. The ride to the top will require a lot of energy, and you need to bring food for all that energy. Once you get to the top, the ride to the base at the other side is coasting all the way, requiring very little energy.
If this is to be a two way trip, you need to pack a spare bicycle for the return trip, enough food for the difficult ride up the mountain on the way there, and an equally large amount of food for the trip back up the mountain. Note that since you'll be carrying a spare bicycle, you'll need even *more* food for the first trip up.
If it is to be a one way trip, then all the weight of the other bicycle can instead be used for food. and since you'll only be making one difficult climb, the much larger amount of food that you brought will last much longer, because you won't need the energy to go back up the mountain.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:15 am
As to the prople who are appalled at the thought of a one-way trip being a "suicide mission", think about this:
*Life* is a suicide mission.
We get one lifetime; No more, no less. What we choose to do with that lifetime is what makes all the difference.
Any true evaluation of the value of a life must be based on quality, *not* quantity.
If I could choose a life that allowed me to do something that would ignite the imaginations of a generation of children, that would cause the people of the world to glance skyward in amazement, that would embolden others to step forward and take up the flag that dropped from my lifeless fingers, I hope that I would have the bravery to choose that life, even though it might be tragically cut short due to the perilous path it followed.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:34 am
OK, so this will never happen, and the old guy is just having a rant.
But, why are some of you under the impression that a one-way manned mission to Mars will keep the poor unfortunate selected alive for a few years or months? (Read the comments by GBendt – two thirds down)
Peter K: Mars does have blue skies as the sun rises/sets.
NASA Intern: NASA aren’t fools. I agree that humanity will inevitably leave Earth and colonise other places; but not at the deliberate cost of human life. So it’s unlikely NASA will go “moon colony� on us unless everything is perfect. NASA’s history: budget constraints, project slippage = 2030 is perhaps optimistic, though time will tell.
So what if the Chinese do get to Mars before the rest of the world, through some kamikaze mission? I doubt it will demonstrate technological superiority – any nation that wants to accomplish this might plan a return trip.
…as for Mr|Mrs Yogic Flying… keep smoking the Marshrooms!
March 6th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Longer trips would /have/ to be one-way; Looking at Mars the same way seems reasonable enough.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Do they have internet access there?
March 6th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Rustin Wright has the right idea. Start sending many flights long before the astronaut leaves, each one with supplies and robots to build an enclosed living space and (if possible) the beginnings of oxygen generation and fuel generation.
Perhaps landing near the pole with frozen water (as a source for Oxygen to breathe and Hydrogen to use as fuel) would allow for this, using a orbital power source sending power down via microwaves or whatever method works.
Many people would be willing to go on a one-way flight! I would, but you wouldn't take me because of my age and other factors. And those willing to volunteer would go knowing it was most likely to end up being a suicide mission. Who cares! You would get the chance to do something no one would ever do again - be the first human to land and live on another planet! Among other wonderful benefits, besides the exploration and discoveries would be that your name would go down in history. What a rush!
The moral discussion about not sending someone on a suicide mission, and mentioning Laika are all ridiculous. We kill hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats every year in our pounds! It is nuts to weep over the death of one which might have given human kind new knowledge. And humans really aren't that different. We have more than we need on this planet. Sending one to die for the potential to learn is worth it (I would go if you will take me).
And when you die on Mars, your bacteria and fungi will take your body chemicals apart creating the first Mars "dirt". You would become part of anything that grew on Mars after that (if anything did grow there after your flight).
I think that planning ahead and expecting tech to advance to assist with terraforming (at least under the dome you or the robots constructed) is worth it.
We should travel to the moon and Mars to stretch ourselves to advance our technology to assist all humans who remain behind. This happened after all previous flights, esp. those to the moon. It is also an excellent way to get the whole world involved in a single endeavor, to emphasize that we share one world and should get along better than we do. It might be worth the cost for just this reason.
If Mars and suicide is just too much for our society to accept, then do the same thing to the moon. It is closer, could have a return trip, and can be considered as a trial run for going to Mars.
I want to go, and I think it is worth it even if I died on the way there. The next man/woman would have a better chance because of the information gained by my flight. Think about it!
March 6th, 2008 at 3:34 am
if you stopped nasa from undercutting the private space ventures and losing money all the time then maybe they wouldnt have to beg for money from congress.
For years nasa has made a loss launching satellites just to keep the private companies out of the running.
perhaps if you spent less time making sure you stayed at the top and more sharing everything then this race we call humans would be able to realise our potential. instead of lining the pockets of the elite
March 6th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Rustin Wright has the right idea.
Start sending flights long before the astronaut leaves, each one with supplies and robots to build an enclosed living space and (if possible) the beginnings of oxygen generation and fuel generation. Send many of them…
Landing near the pole with frozen water would be a source for Oxygen to breathe and Hydrogen to use as fuel. Since it would not be near the equatorial max sun exposure, we might have to use an orbital power source sending power down via microwaves or perhaps this is a place for a nuclear energy source.
Many people would be willing to go on a one-way flight! I would, but you wouldn't take me because of my age and other factors. Those willing to volunteer would go knowing it was most likely to end up being a suicide mission.
Who cares! You would get the chance to do something no one would EVER do again - be the first, the VERY first human to land and be alive on another planet! Among other wonderful benefits, besides the exploration and discoveries - your name would go down in history. What a rush!
The moral discussion about not sending someone on a suicide mission, and mentioning Laika are not well thought out. We kill hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats every year in our pounds! It is nuts to weep over the death of one dog which might have given human kind new knowledge. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that sending one human to die for the potential to learn so much is worth it (I would go if you will take me).
And when you eventually die on Mars, the bacteria and fungi which are inside your body and on your skin will break down your body's chemicals, creating the first Mars "dirt". You would become part of anything that grew on Mars after that (if anything did grow there in the future). I think that is so cool!
I think that planning ahead and anticipating our technology to advance to assist with terraforming (at least under the dome you or the robots constructed) can make this doable.
Humans SHOULD travel to the moon and Mars and beyond to stretch ourselves, to advance our understanding of the universe, and to advance our technology to assist those humans who remain behind. This happened after every previous flights, esp. those to the moon. Many of the things you take for granted today were invented, at least in part, from the things invented in the space program.
Also, this adventure is an excellent way to get the whole world to work together. It is another way to emphasize that we all share one world and should work to get along better than we do. It might be worth the cost for just this reason alone.
If Mars and suicide is just too much for our society to accept, then do the same thing to the moon. It is closer, could have a return trip, and can be considered as a trial run for going to Mars.
I want to go, and I think it is worth it even if I died on the way there. (If this happens, please send what is left of my body to Mars to become dirt.) My attempt gives the next man/woman a better chance because of the information gained by my failure. Think about it!
March 6th, 2008 at 4:00 am
wow imagine the ping rate when playing World of warcraft from mars
March 6th, 2008 at 4:07 am
I would go, without hesetation
March 6th, 2008 at 4:35 am
Why not start with the moon, have a solid present there, learn from it, then used what we have learned, for building a colony on mars, that sounds like a better plan, besides, that also means, more stuff learned, and less of a chance of err.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Let's send Hillary.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:50 am
If actually landing on mars and returning is not feasible how about a manned mission to construct a space station similar to ISS to orbit mars. This could be used in the future as a stepping-stone for new missions.
This would probably provide little to none more information on mars itself but would provide real long-distance travel experiences and technology.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Please send Dennis Kucinich on this one way mission to Mars.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:15 am
terrible idea — everyone in the colony would commit suicide within a year, probably before they even get to mars
March 6th, 2008 at 6:23 am
It's actually less mass to send a return vehicle (provided you use Mars Direct) than enough food to last a lifetime. And medical and food supplies tend to "corrode" in radiation faster.
It's not "colonization" if you don't have anyone with you, or enough equipment to build additional pressurized structures, including greenhouses. That, again, is more mass than a return vehicle. The math just doesn't work here.
I'm all for a new generation of heroes, and getting crews to Mars ASAP, but we need them to come home and talk to the kids face to face, not over a web connection. An elaborate suicide seen by the whole world is not an example I want to set for the next generation.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:39 am
can you imagine what kind of pings he'll get trying to play WoW?
March 6th, 2008 at 6:42 am
I always wondered what it'd be like to live on another world. I'd go.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:45 am
How about a ship with reusable rockets that can land on mars in one piece with and a method for them to find,mine, and process the fuel necessary to bring them back. Or possible a ship that they leave in orbit and a "mars lander". With the lower gravity and essentially all the time in the world it seems like it should be possible, at least it would give them and us some hope, something to shoot for.
The idea of a truly one-way trip is far to depressing for us, not to mention what I am sure it would do to the poor soul who volunteered to go.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:47 am
So, after we send more and more people over the course of a few decades, the colony becomes self-sufficient, declares independence, and establishes trade relations with Earth. Then, within 100 years, we could be at war! Just think what it will do for the defense budget. The Pentagon better get on it right away!
March 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
We ave no hope of making it to Mars and staying for any time period.
The current approach of using increasingly more sophisticated robotic probes is the only feasable and safe way to explore space or exploit other worlds. We have sent the mariner probes the mars rovers and many others and gained far more than we cold have ever hope to with human explorers.
Sorry SI-Fi fantasy fans but humans in space is more an egotistic and expensive fantasy than good science.
Just getting to our own moon proved to be temporary and unsustanable after several near failures of the apollo missions - even the moon is out of our grasp, the best we can manage is low earth orbit and thats an expensive waste compared to what the same budget could do with unmanned stuff.
In the future people will not explore space instead it will be done by small robots and our task will be to design/build and maintain those robots.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:55 am
If it is to be a 'one-way' trip, why not make it a penal colony? A sort of Martian Botany Bay.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Some of the replies in this thread are just incredibly ignorant. I would like to see colonization on Mars in my lifetime too, but doing it properly is more important than rushing it just in a vain attempt to re-attune ourselves with our "forgotten adventurous spirit" or whatever.
Let's talk practically. Sending crafts every 26 months is going to be far, far more expensive than sending one craft with a crew large enough to be self-sustaining. Considerations have to be given to a wide variety of factors, including medical attention, hardware failure, and quality of life - namely routine exercise. Sitting in a pod for years isn't good for mind or body. Sending one man or woman is ideal, sure… But it would have to be one superhuman to be able to handle the emotional stress of isolation, as well as being versed in technology enough to single-handedly repair anything which might malfunction. Even being capable of knowing how to fix a problem doesn't mean that the resources are available or that it's feasible to be accomplished as a one-person job. What if the person needs medical attention? What if he's repairing a part of his craft and suddenly a beam falls and delivers a concussion, or an internal injury? Just because you can have experts at NASA telling him how to treat a wound, doesn't mean he will always be in a condition to do so.
Financial concerns aside, even if we were to send one or two more people out there every 26 months, what happens if the first pioneer to Mars suddenly has a stroke before anyone arrives? Being the first person to explore an area may be a romanticized idea, but it's hardly practical in a mission so dangerous and so costly. Hell, even in "Lost in Space," the concept included a small crew, inclusive of a doctor. If our creative impulses can give us enough common sense to place a doctor in a corny TV sitcom, why then when we are trying to make the dream r