One way mars trip:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Jan 7, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    An even better example of people taking risks that will probably lead to their deaths, are those brave buggers who shut down and isolated Chernobyl, and in more recent times Fukushima. Their chances were not real high either.

    People are different and some go to extremes to get their thrills and adrenilin rushes....
    Others are dedicated to exploration and the sciences, and will likewise take risks......

    Man will always want to go where no other has gone before
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Why do you think you would know what would happen? Because you're so brilliant? To put it simply. The stuff they need to build the base is already prefabricated and orbiting mars waiting to be downloaded for installation on the planet. Everything else they need would be available as PLANNED by the mission team. As for the 'ship' I would make it an 'interplanetary capable component' of a future relativistic rocket. It would remain as the main base [safe house] for the mission team while orbiting the planet. This interplanetary component would house the stuff we need to create a self sustaining environment for the relativistic rocket. It would be in operational test long before the actual interplanetary trip, while in orbit around mars, to where no man has gone before. So the idea isn't to stick folks in a hut and see how bored they get while duplicating the robot experiments.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The idea that everybody is probably going to die is established. I predict nobody will die because it's a suicide mission.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    You won't get any argument from me!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,430
    Who would want to live in a terrifying new continent full of vicious Indians, violent weather and horrible diseases until they die? A lot of people, apparently.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,430
    Or perhaps go out into the greenhouse. Or into the new research lab they just dug.

    Any self sufficient colony will have plenty of green.

    I know more than one person who has spent 30 years living in a tiny apartment, spending most of their time in front of a TV eating junk food, working at a job they hate during the day - then dying young of a heart attack or a stroke. You can do that on Mars as easily as you can do it on Earth.
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    I can well imagine that they could keep themselves quite busy making arrangements for subsequent influxes of people. A steady supply of ships bringing ever more supplies, which they could implement into planned colonies. Running equipment to make thick glass for greenhouses (to shield uV/gamma and micrometeorites), trenching new quarters, mining for water, etc. etc. would be quite interesting and challenging. Over time, it could become quite habitable for millions. Heck, even the low gravity would make it an attractive senior-citizen destination for final years if you could have creature comforts (tv and beer for many!).
     
  11. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Yet he will love being crammed in a spacecraft and tiny habitat for the rest of his life.

    I am more amazed so many people would just drop things and go.

    I have a list of people I would like to send (you know who you are).
     
  12. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Interesting input.

    The colonisation of America was a different issue. There was big party, well-equipped, with decent technology, and they knew there would be air to breath and water to drink and soil to till. They expected to develop a self-sustaining colony, and they were right. That's a bad comparision.

    Chernobyl and Fukushima are also a bad comparision. Those brave people were stopping disasters which would have killed tens of thousands of people. Going to Mars ain't going to save anyone, just result in premature deaths.

    The state of mind of the people who have volunteered? Lots of people risk their lives for nothing, doing extreme sports or just plain stupid things. That's their right. There's even an award for the most stupid among them, called the Darwin Award. Most of them will drop out anyway.

    Is it suicide? If you start an undertaking which is going to shorten your life, then it could be called suicidal.

    The colony will never be self-sustaining and will always require support from Earth, imho. At some point that support will falter and they will die. One supply ship fails, and they starve.

    If humans can do things that robots can't - and the robots are getting better all the time - then it won't be ground-breaking and worth trillions of dollars and dozens of lives.

    If it's not a portaloo then it's not much better. It will have to be underground, and they won't spend much time on the surface, because of the radiation.

    Interstellar travel is impossible and will remain so, so it's not a stepping stone to the stars. (Paddoboy excepted: he's off to Alpha Centauri next year).

    To sum up: why on Earth (or Mars) send humans to the Red Planet? Just because it's there is the oly reason, and that's not a good reason to kill people and spend trillions of $. Imho.
     
  13. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    A one way trip to Mars knowing that whoever goes will never return to earth is a suicide mission and should not ever be considered.
     
  14. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    yeah, and let's pass laws to restrict our freedom to do so; no trips to the moon, mars, asteroid belt, 'cause we will never be able to make a situation for round-trips in the future.
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    So... if a person went to Mars, lives to the age of, say 97 years, produces multiple offspring (on Mars), and then dies from natural causes/old age(on Mars)...that person is committing "suicide"?

    Is that because they "never return to Earth"?

    I am sorry, Buddha12, but it almost sounds like you consider that to not return to the place/planet of your birth, prior to death, to somehow be "suicide"!
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,430
    Were all the one way trips to America in the 1700's suicides?
     
  17. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    But what is being suggested is that they want to send humans to Mars with no way to return back to earth. They would need allot of equipment and supplies to establish a base there and technology just hasn't got to that point yet. The main thrust should be developing a way to get to Mars and return home SAFELY before we establish a base there. Remember that over 40 spacecraft have been sent to Mars and only 30 percent ever made it there so far.
     
  18. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Were they really one way trips? A long as the ships were intact they could have sailed home, more quickly as a matter of fact on account of the westerlies. They were only one way because they established functioning colonies or got killed, not because there was no way to return.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,430
    Why? Any long term exploration of Mars will include technology to give them air to breathe, water to drink and soil to till. They will expect to develop a self-sustaining colony in the long term.

    This doesn't mean they will all be successful, of course. The Colony of Roanoke, one of the first colonies in the continental US, failed miserably. Still - over 400 years later, here I am, living out my "suicide missions" here in the New World.

    That would include me, then (skydiving instructor.)

    Why do you think that?

    To put all our eggs in two baskets.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,430
    A great many were. A ship would land, offload people and leave. If they wanted to return, they had to hope for more ships coming later.
     
  21. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    In the "new world" people had air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat and homes that could be made easily and simply.

    On Mars none of those things exist. So how does anyone think that those who go there can survive?
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,430
    Zubrin has some good overviews. On Mars there is ice (water) carbon dioxide (oxygen) and dirt (soil substrates.) Bring tents and seeds and you can grow food. Bring a Sabatier plant, an electrolysis rig and a reactor and you can make water, oxygen and methane for fuel.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    All you did was sum up your opinions. How profound. I think the only valid one is who could afford to front the cash. The stuff about requiring supply ships from earth is complete nonsense. If that would be the requirement nobody would be interested. Dumb planning dumb project.
     

Share This Page