You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Re: Mars One Way
I just don't see spending a lot of money on a one-way mission, no matter how it's constructed or who goes. There is no point to it. We might as well just send robots and probes. The point of sending humans into space is to make space a place for humans. The intent at the outset has to be long term or it makes no sense to do it. The science alone is not enough. Politics alone is not enough.
I think the first people to Mars should be the explorer type. They need to have the training to gather information, intelligence, lay the basic groundwork of knowledge, science, environment. They should not stay long because they are the wrong type. This is the glory phase, not because they want it, but they'll get it nonetheless. I certainly hope money and politics permit us to get past this phase. (I sometimes believe the only way past this is for private money to enter the scene.)
AFTER THEY RETURN, next would come those who establish physical infrastructure. I think this is the oil rig type, the rugged engineer type you mentioned, Brian.
The settler type would come next, like the ones who stay long term in the Antarctic. They do routine work mostly, some basic science, plus they begin to establish some social fabric that is less shoot-from-the-hip, more orderly, more protocol.
I just don't envision a single trip to Mars or even just a couple missions of long duration. Of course if that's all that is planned, the crew should be carefully selected based not only on their type or character, but on their skills and on how the whole team behaves together. The shortest mission with intent to return would be 2 1/2 years, a long time to be crowded together.
I agree, Brian, these first (or only) people will need to be survivors, but not individual survivors, team survivors. I also agree with your statement that NASA has created a culture that won't succeed with this type of endeavor. The Shuttle culture, as has been revealed to us, won't work. A culture change at NASA will be needed.
Good discussion!
Gary
I think the point of going to Mars is not to say simply that we did it, but rather to establish a viable settlement there with the intent to live. This objective would not be advanced by a low cost mission to what would become known as the Suicide Planet. I think fewer people than you imagine would sign up.
On a more human level, the excitement of exploring a frontier comes from the personal rewards from that endeavor, and that includes continuing to live! The spirit of frontier is not death, but life! An exciting life, a better life, a glorious life, a famous life, whatever personal rewards one secretly holds.
Aknowledging that death can be a part of exploration is not the same as planning for it.
So, you see, it's not just about the cost. The "added" cost of the return trip should not be considered separate from the cost of the whole trip.
The benefits obtained by a safe return would far outweigh the benefits from the journey or the arrival in that it would spur additional missions that would, in time, accelerate our knowlege and successes. In this light a one-way mission would utterly fail to accomplish any real human objective. It may be argued that it could succeed in gaining initial scientific knowledge at a lower cost, but it doesn't calculate the added cost of failing to advance that knowlege to the next level. In other words, it would create its own dead end.
A planned suicide mission is anti-human, anti-frontier, anti-scientific, essentially an expensive waste.
Gary
Pages: 1