One way ticket to Mars

hydaspes

Ok, the idea of a one way ticket to Mars was already in the news two years ago (after a scientific publication on the matter), and since then NASA is seriously considering it, as far as I know.

But now there is a private initiative too (I think there are more).
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/want-one-way-ticket-mars-dutch-company-looking-012824434.html

Or the actual project (with film):
http://mars-one.com/en/

Would you consider a one way ticket to Mars? Why would you (or wouldn't you?).

starkaos

Be kind of stupid to use a one way ticket to Mars right now when there are no buildings of any kind there. Seems to be suicide right now. Need some forms of entertainment and a lifetime supply or air, water, and food to be available.

vaapi

I would consider it. My girlfriend would not be very pleased.

Ok, you have to live there in a tin can or a cave, and probably the radiation will cut your life in half, if the lack of medical facilities doesn't get you first. And you would probably be bored to death.

But at least I would contribute to colonizing other planets. Get my name on a nice gold plaque somewhere. And with a little luck those aliens that are hiding there so well will contact me.

hydaspes

starkaos wrote: »

Be kind of stupid to use a one way ticket to Mars right now when there are no buildings of any kind there. Seems to be suicide right now. Need some forms of entertainment and a lifetime supply or air, water, and food to be available.

That would indeed be stupid. That's why they have constructed a plan to drop that stuff off first and keep resupplying. And the mission would be to build a base. And a lifetime supply of water and air (if you generate it there) is already present on Mars.

Check it out.
http://mars-one.com/en/

starkaos

Wouldn't mind a return flight to Mars since all the red would get to me. Although, if it was to a planet similar to Earth, but very different types of animals and planets with hot alien babes, then I would take the one way ticket. Might need some adaption genetic engineering to live on that planet though.

captwinters1701

Well someone's got to be first! Colonization of Mars is somewhat similar to the colonization of the New World. The first few explorers have troubles with adapting to the new area, but once the first few make all the mistakes, the follow on colonists should find things easier to deal with. I for one would like to be on that first manned flight. Although the lag for STO would be insane

briitta

I've been looking at their website and I wonder how realistic it all is.

1. They want to make it all into television entertainment like big brother, and this way raise the money for the project. So people will be tuning in to see in how many ways this project can fail due through mismanagement, and eventually, disaster and death. And the colonists will become TV celebs you can observe live taking a dump in a martian latrine.
2. They seem to have no big plans what to do on Mars, except plant some containers there where people can life in. Are these containers radiation resistant? NASA plans to use underground (cave) dwellings or earthen mounds, did "Mars-One" even consider this?
3. Did they think about an early detection system (satelites) for radiation bursts, giving the colonists enough warning to rush back to their shelters?
4. They make a great deal about their cheap rovers that need that you keep wearing your suit, giving the colonists no real action radius to explore Mars.
5. They want to create power by laying thin (and less efficient) solar panel sheets on the ground, covering a large area. The colonists have to somehow clean this to keep the dust off. And martian sandstorms?
6. There seems to be no scientific or exploration goal whatsoever.
7. There are a lot of mistakes about Mars and technology on their website, that does not give great confidence in their future (there seem to be no serious scientists connected to their endevour).

I would love to be the first to go to Mars, but this pointless entertainment mission I would rather let pass.

cormoran

briitta wrote: »

I've been looking at their website and I wonder how realistic it all is.

1. They want to make it all into television entertainment like big brother, and this way raise the money for the project. So people will be tuning in to see in how many ways this project can fail due through mismanagement, and eventually, disaster and death. And the colonists will become TV celebs you can observe live taking a dump in a martian latrine.
2. They seem to have no big plans what to do on Mars, except plant some containers there where people can life in. Are these containers radiation resistant? NASA plans to use underground (cave) dwellings or earthen mounds, did "Mars-One" even consider this?
3. Did they think about an early detection system (satelites) for radiation bursts, giving the colonists enough warning to rush back to their shelters?
4. They make a great deal about their cheap rovers that need that you keep wearing your suit, giving the colonists no real action radius to explore Mars.
5. They want to create power by laying thin (and less efficient) solar panel sheets on the ground, covering a large area. The colonists have to somehow clean this to keep the dust off. And martian sandstorms?
6. There seems to be no scientific or exploration goal whatsoever.
7. There are a lot of mistakes about Mars and technology on their website, that does not give great confidence in their future (there seem to be no serious scientists connected to their endevour).

I would love to be the first to go to Mars, but this pointless entertainment mission I would rather let pass.

hmmm, if that's the case then we can get the same results out of watching Prometheus. :P

hydaspes

Not true, there were serious scientists on board in Prometheus. :P

hevach

If it's not a hoax, governments will crack the hell down on it fast. Their technological plan doesn't add up, and the ethics aren't there. The idea of a one way first trip is interesting, but not actually more viable than a two way trip - the costs are much higher and there's no proof of viability.


A key difference between colonizing Mars and the New World? Those failed colonies weren't left to starve to death, they went native. When the next ship found Roanoke abandoned, they also found a new race of genetically impossible natives who spoke passable English, prayed to Jesus, were unaffected by the European plagues that were killing pretty much everybody on the continent at the time, and had an uncanny knowledge of European customs. The whole Roanoke mystery was a PR campaign to keep people from realizing that they could just walk away from their struggling colonies and find new pants-optional lives in the non-struggling native settlements.

There's probably no convenient Martian tribe to integrate into, and if there is, you probably won't be forging a new tribe of hybrids. But, if there is, and you do, it is a certainty that they will consume the universe as we know it.

captwinters1701

Roanoke wasn't the only lost colony in the New World, it's just the one that gets the most press.

hydaspes

@ hevach
Fair points about the differences to the exploration of the New World

But it is pretty certain that a one way trip is more viable than a two way trip. There have been plenty of serious scientists arguing this, to the extent that even NASA is now considering to take this option on board for their Mars programme.

There are a few reasons why it is more viable. Obviously the costs of the return verhicle are enormous, in fact, in the Appollo missions it added more than 50% to the costs I think. Mainly because of the significant weight it involves. With the current budget squeeze on space programmes, that matters a lot.

But also we are talking about long missions. The mission time with returning the astronauts would take roughly 2 and a half years. It is very doubtful or exposure to no and low gravity for that lenght of time makes it possible for the astronauts to be more than cripples on earth, or even survive that at all. And that is worsened by the prolonged exposure to radiation, which is most risky during the space travel, which time is doubled in a return flight. So...the likelyhood of them not surviving a return is there already. So, an enormous amount of money for a very risky outcome.

It turns out there are plenty of very qualified people that are a bit older, let's say, 50+, that won't mind living out their lives on Mars. They can start building a colony that would sustain generations, and younger people with a return option can follow decades later (or be born there eventually). There are a lot of possibilities in making Mars sustainable, with plenty of water, oxygen and good ingredients for cement. An added advantage for NASA is that a programme where people remain will not easily be abandoned, that would be political suicide.

The biggest issue with the one-way ticket is culture. Ethics. Not to bring people back, to leave them there permanently, even if it is voluntary, that is a bit hard to swallow for politicians.

angrytarg

Hell no, I love our old blue earth too much, I'm still trying to save her instead of just grabbing my cases and fly off to mars

Seriously, a one-way ticket to mars really sounds like a bad idea. I'm very convinced that even if the colonists survive the trip (which I highly doubt) the resulting colony will sure as hell become a lawless hellhole before the next load of people will arive. "Welcome to paradise city..."

kazapsky

Mars One is a joke. Anyone with half a brain can see it's a suicide mission, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The Martian climate itself will wipe out the colony long before the inevitable supply-chain failures get a chance to cause problems.

Sorry, I'm not interested in squandering my life on a fool's errand.

hevach

captwinters1701 wrote: »

Roanoke wasn't the only lost colony in the New World, it's just the one that gets the most press.

It's also the first one that was identified in a timely manner. Even then, the first generation was gone and the only evidence of what happened to them were the light haired children with knowledge of European customs. Others, by the time they were found, had been gone longer and aside from a few stray genes in the native pool there's not much evidence of where they actually went. But the smart money's on the same thing as Roanoke - even Benjamin Franklin dabbled in native culture, and admitted returning to the hours and toil of his normal work was the hardest thing he'd ever done.

There are a few reasons why it is more viable. Obviously the costs of the return verhicle are enormous, in fact, in the Appollo missions it added more than 50% to the costs I think. Mainly because of the significant weight it involves. With the current budget squeeze on space programmes, that matters a lot.

The best estimates for a one-way trip involve a higher budget because they require taking around three to five times as much weight for the trip (that counts fuel for the return). And that's the very optimistic ones, where food production would be secure with the first planting, no equipment would be lost, and certain resources (which we haven't found evidence of in rover exploration) can be secured within travel distance of the base site.

But also we are talking about long missions. The mission time with returning the astronauts would take roughly 2 and a half years. It is very doubtful or exposure to no and low gravity for that lenght of time makes it possible for the astronauts to be more than cripples on earth, or even survive that at all.

That would include spending a year and a half in Martian gravity, keep in mind. Anyway, there's no actual doubt that they could survive this. Our longest space station stayovers have exceeded the total weightless time of a round trip to Mars (specifically to test just this), and the astronauts involved had no measurable loss of muscle mass. The only phsiological problem associated is a poorly understood period of severe depression right after several of them returned, which in all cases cleared in a few weeks without medication. There's also no progressive worsening from shorter stays of 3 or 6 months, strongly indicating that the pattern would continue indefinitely.

As for the time at Mars gravity, that's also something that can be simulated on Earth by keeping the head below the heart. Prolonged studies of that kind have suggested that a Mars mission lasting three years would be sustainable as long as the exercise regiment was adhered to. And NASA is already very strict about exercise.

And that is worsened by the prolonged exposure to radiation, which is most risky during the space travel, which time is doubled in a return flight. So...the likelyhood of them not surviving a return is there already. So, an enormous amount of money for a very risky outcome.

Solutions to this have to happen either way - unshielded astronauts would most likely not survive the one way trip, either.

vaapi

Look, it's pretty common knowledge that there is an alien installation hidden on Mars that, if activated, melts all the ice and generates a near-instant atmosphere. Mars will then turn into Vegas.

Also, there is a temple-like building in the form of a human face, that will initially suck people up and tear them apart, but if you discover the secret sound code, will turn out to be a spaceship that will take you to another star system where all the aliens went that used to live on Mars (Earth was not good enough for them to settle, but they did leave their DNA there).

So a one way ticket does not worry me.

hydaspes

@ hevach

I'm sure you are much more of an expert than me, but apparently NASA and a lot of respected scientists don't seem to agree with you. So don't argue with me on it.

Argue with Dirk Schulze-Makuch, professor at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Washington State University, and Paul Davies, professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND (Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science). They seem to think it is a solution. They published a paper on it 2010 October-November issue of the Journal of Cosmology.

Since then NASA is taking the option under serious advisement.
NASA Ames Director Pete Worden revealed that one of NASA?s main research centres, Ames Research Centre, is going to do a study on this option, apparently, and funding for this (also from NASA) is in place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324192/Hundred-Year-Starship-Mars-mission-leave-astronauts-planet-forever.html

For now I will stick with them in my believe it makes some sense.

Edit:

Apparently Buzz Aldrin was the greatest supporter for the one-way-trip first, so let me include the WIKI I found on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay

ltsmith

I have actually been thinking about it I mean really I want to explore the unknown; I also would love to be the first man on Mars history will never forget my name.

hydaspes

ltsmith wrote: »

I have actually been thinking about it I mean really I want to explore the unknown; I also would love to be the first man on Mars history will never forget my name.

It's an Achilles-dilemma.
Stay home, and you will have a loving family, kids, grandchildren, a happy life, and in two generations you will be forgotten.
Go to Troy and you will die there. But your name will live on into eternity.

vaapi

hydaspes wrote: »

It's an Achilles-dilemma.
Stay home, and you will have a loving family, kids, grandchildren, a happy life, and in two generations you will be forgotten.
Go to Troy and you will die there. But your name will live on into eternity.

It's no dilemma, really.