Here's an idea that would cut the cost of a human Mars trip to a fraction of what it could be. No return to Earth.
Explorers, adventurers and colonists of the past often made one way trips. That is how every human population outside Africa happened. Why not to Mars? In some ways it would be easier for Mars colonists. They would have nearly instant communication with home. Also, future technology might make a return much easier than present technology. A future expedition could send a craft that could allow a return trip for the colonists or their children.
Certainly we could find willing, and capable volunteers who would become the first Earth ex-patriates and become true colonists on Mars.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Could I volunteer someone?
Although I have heard this suggestion before, it might be worthwhile to consider the odds against colonization at this point in our technological capability. The worst environmental Earth conditions are far more accomodating than anything now possible on Mars. The expedition would have to provide not only adequate basics such as air and food, but, for a lifelong stay, also medical facilities with the proper personnel. That means several highly competent explorers with suicidal tendencies. If a haven such as a highly liveable space station orbiting Mars which could rescue anybody in real trouble, it might be worth considering, although still highly doubtful.
We'd have to make repeated shipments of supplies to keep them alive.
Interesting idea. You must have read the op/ed article in the NY Times, "Life (and Death) on Mars", by Paul Davies - NY Times of Jan 15, 2004. (Also see http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1023276.htm)
I tried http://www.abc.net.au/news/ newsitems/s1023276.htm)but it was unavailable to my server.
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1023276.htm
Sand, if you remove the space in ".../ newsitems/..." then the link should work. Alternatively, you could do a search on Google for the term "One way to Mars, please" and it should be the first link that comes up. Hope this helps.
I don't think psychology is the major issue. Nor recruiting volunteers. Partly its a political issue. It certainly doesn't sound like something politically tenable. And, of course, the cost reduction of a one-way trip is lessened by the extra supplies needed to maintain a long-term presence. And Nasa has never built any equipment that it will guarantee for 50 yrs.
But it does seem like a collosal waste of rocket fuel to send humans from Mars to Earth when the whole point is movement in the other direction. Perhaps the issue is less important when one considers the possibility of In-Situ Resource Utilization, ie processing the Martian atmosphere into rocket fuel, and that it would be necessary anyway to send back a large mass of Martian rocks to Earth for detailed analysis.
Maybe there is also oil on Mars!!
In reply to eastriver's comments, unless I misunderstand, I think turning Mars into basically a vast disposable resource isn't good.
Working on & Living on Mars to study it is one thing, but basically exploiting it's resources is another.
I'm not an environmentalist, but I do strongly believe in the prevention of the overuse of resources, be they natural or man made.