3 ms·

If Mars can be mined for water (and it looks like it can), there is no reason to make it a one-way trip only. Sending people there with the explicit expectation

by Udo 14y ago

If Mars can be mined for water (and it looks like it can), there is no reason to make it a one-way trip only. Sending people there with the explicit expectation to die soon speaks of poor planning and not a lot of willingness to export the basic tenets of humanity into space with us. It's a bad precedent, it carries the wrong message about the value of intelligent life, and I'm afraid the mission's limitations also impact its overall chances of success. Although we have experienced a sad regression in our space capabilities, there is nothing in principle preventing us from sending humans and basic building blocks there, let them build a decent base, and then instate a regular shuttling service. Even if building the outpost takes 10 years, that's not the same as sending them onto a suicide mission as the article implies. We're missing a lot of necessary infrastructure for this though, and without it the stated Sept. 2022 launch date might as well be 2122 or even 4022. We'll need a moon base to stage this thing (not only the initial flight but more importantly the supply line), and if we're serious about expanding into the solar system, one or two space elevators are probably a necessity. The political will to build any of these, never mind maintaining them, does not exist. We're too busy propping up corrupt political and financial systems, not to mention the importance of waging an eternal war the expenses of which could provide enough for a decent colonialization program many times over. Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem.

indrax 14y ago
"Die on mars" does not mean "die soon". This proposal is not a suicide mission.
saalweachter 14y ago
> Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem. I think you misunderstand. While the linked article is brief, the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills, but to supply them for the next 40-80 years from Earth. Because of the hilarities of the rocket equation, it is cheaper to send rocket after rocket full of water, breathable air, food, fuel, and other supplies than it is to send enough rocket fuel for a return trip. Like, way cheaper. As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does.
- Udo 14y ago
  > the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills Maybe I got caught up in the ridiculousness of the article's sensational tone, but even so there is no technical reason to actually plan on never having return flights. This relates directly to your other statement: As I wrote in the parent comment, the presence of water on Mars allows for the production of rocket fuel on site. This ties in to where I mentioned extended infrastructure such as a space elevator and a Moon base, because those too will make trips back and forth economical (instead of scraping everything together for a singular "by the skin of our teeth" mission like this one). I wrote about these points for a reason ;)
  - ams6110 14y ago
    While perhaps a return may some day be possible, the point is people are being recruited without that promise. So that, e.g. they realize that if they get sick, or seriously injured, or even just change their mind, there is no way to get back.
- greyfade 14y ago
  > As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does. Implying that we won't come up with that technology by the time we get people there.
  - GhotiFish 14y ago
    Well. No he wasn't. There's also a real possibility that the technology doesn't exist. There's an even greater possibility that it does, and we arn't capable of comprehending it.
- danielweber 14y ago
  > send enough rocket fuel for a return trip That hasn't been the plan for a long time. NASA's Design Reference Mission, and the one anyone who has studied Mars missions at any point in the past 20 years, is to manufacture fuel on Mars. In fact, you would probably send this equipment to Mars first so that the astronauts going to Mars would have a fully fueled return ship ready and waiting for them before they even take off from Earth.
saraid216 14y ago
"MEN WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."

by Udo 14y ago

indrax 14y ago

"Die on mars" does not mean "die soon". This proposal is not a suicide mission.

saalweachter 14y ago

> Scraping together a suicide team and shooting it roughly in Mars' general direction is not the answer to this problem. I think you misunderstand. While the linked article is brief, the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills, but to supply them for the next 40-80 years from Earth. Because of the hilarities of the rocket equation, it is cheaper to send rocket after rocket full of water, breathable air, food, fuel, and other supplies than it is to send enough rocket fuel for a return trip. Like, way cheaper. As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does.

Udo 14y ago
> the one-way plan isn't to send a ship-full of people with suicide pills Maybe I got caught up in the ridiculousness of the article's sensational tone, but even so there is no technical reason to actually plan on never having return flights. This relates directly to your other statement: As I wrote in the parent comment, the presence of water on Mars allows for the production of rocket fuel on site. This ties in to where I mentioned extended infrastructure such as a space elevator and a Moon base, because those too will make trips back and forth economical (instead of scraping everything together for a singular "by the skin of our teeth" mission like this one). I wrote about these points for a reason ;)
- ams6110 14y ago
  While perhaps a return may some day be possible, the point is people are being recruited without that promise. So that, e.g. they realize that if they get sick, or seriously injured, or even just change their mind, there is no way to get back.
greyfade 14y ago
> As the article says, the technology for a return trip just doesn't exist; the technology for a series of one-way trips does. Implying that we won't come up with that technology by the time we get people there.
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  Well. No he wasn't. There's also a real possibility that the technology doesn't exist. There's an even greater possibility that it does, and we arn't capable of comprehending it.
danielweber 14y ago
> send enough rocket fuel for a return trip That hasn't been the plan for a long time. NASA's Design Reference Mission, and the one anyone who has studied Mars missions at any point in the past 20 years, is to manufacture fuel on Mars. In fact, you would probably send this equipment to Mars first so that the astronauts going to Mars would have a fully fueled return ship ready and waiting for them before they even take off from Earth.

saraid216 14y ago

"MEN WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS."