Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

realmacaw · 2004-01-10 07:19:03

If we want to go to Mars sooner and cheaper, I suggest we send astronauts on a one way planned suicide mission. I'm serious.

There would be many qualified people who would sign up for the trip. There are almost 300 million Americans, not to mention all the billions of people on Earth. Is it morally wrong to sacrifice 6 people for something of this importance if the people know it's a one way trip and willingly sign up for it? Consider all the soldiers the U.S. sacrifices for unnecessary wars that pale in importance to sending men to Mars. As grizzly as it may sound, a human life has a price. And that price is far, far less than the cost to bring humans back from Mars.

This is simply about dollars. I'd prefer we bring the Astronauts back. But at what cost? If it delays the mission 20 years or 50 years is that delay worth it for 6 lives? Also, all the billions of dolars spent bringing astronauts back we will have to pay.

Sacrifices have been made all through history. Is sending men to Mars worth 6 lives? I say yes. I say let's go now and let's go cheap! This option is never discussed. It should be seriously discussed.

Brian.

realmacaw · 2004-01-10 08:21:18

Does anyone have any estimates how much cheaper such a mission would be? And how much sooner could it be sent?

If two or three astronauts were sent each time, every so many years we could send a mission.

It would be preferable to bring the astronauts back, or at least let them live safely on Mars the rest of their lives. But until that is possible, these planned suicide missions would get us there much sooner and cheaper than any other way. They would give us a foot in the door.

We live in a world where 5 million people per year die from smoking cigarettes. That number is expected to double in a decade. They know 1 in 3 people who smoke die from it. Yet they willingly smoke. I am simply suggesting that these life and death decisions and sacrifices are made all the time. If someone is willing to die from smoking a cigarette, why not die from going to Mars? We are not talking 5 million or 10 million deaths per year like cigarettes. We are talking perhaps only 2 to 3 people per mission, perhaps every 2 to 4+ years.

Brian.

Rxke · 2004-01-10 09:44:42

i really don't think you could 'sell' a suicide mission to government, or the public ...

A 'survivor' mission, maybe, or probably (put up a camera and see the poor guys play robinson Cruso?, trying to survive till the next drop of spare parts comes their way

Just imagine a cheap suicide mission: after a month suppleis run out, and you hear them pleading for their lives: 'please NASA, or somebody, come and save us, i changed my mind, i wanna live!'
Imagine the newspapers: Space industry let down brave explorers! President looks other way! etc. Because even if they knew it was suicide, once the tears start flowing, all rules change in the mediacircus.
For real suicidal people wouldn't be allowed on a mission to Mars. It may be cheaper, but it would still be costly.

One way could be ok, if you have a chance to survive on the surface for years (with regular 'drops' of supplies or spare parts. ) But even that one-way scenario is frowned upon by the plan-makers, it'd be a mission without an end, and if they'd stop he supplies, they'd be branded as murderes...

ontomars352 · 2004-01-10 09:55:33

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

DannyITR · 2004-01-10 10:00:04

Your idea is innovative but the way you are approching could be taken as actually offensive. Let me explain.

You say 1/3 people who smoke die yet they willingly do it. Most people are unaware of the danger or believe that bad things usually happen to other people. Given the fact that the process can take many decades of smoking to happen most of them probably believe they will stop. Furthermore, if someone dies of lung cancer and they are older than their natural life expectency then I question them being counted in the 1/3. Technically cigarettes killed them but they should have died earlier anyways regardless. The point is, your statement of people smoke knowing that 1/3 will die is erroneous in my opinion.

Astronauts are highly trained, highly educated people. There are not billions of them to spare. It takes time and money to train them. While I believe all human lives are of equal value, purposely sending the best and brightest to die is not very intelilgent.

Just because soldiers may die for what you think is a useless cause and other people may die unnecessarily, you cannot use this as logic to expend more lives. Nobody wants people to die but sometimes accidents happen. I would go so far as to say that no death is for nothing since we always learn from the mistakes. The 50,000 deaths in Vietnam taught us a very important lesson in warfare and politics. The goal wasn't achieved but the deaths weren't for nothing and to suggest otherwise is disrespectful.

I just wanted to clear up those points before continuing to address the mission. For starters any attempt to label it a suicide mission would fail since it sounds like the scum that are suicide bombers. The mission would be called simply a one-way mission to mars with the possibility to return in 10-20 years. The plan would be to have the astronauts set up a habitat and permenant base of some sort. Eventually we could be able to bring them home safely at low cost with another mission. They could even have children during their stay if the conditions were proper. Think of it as an extended Mars stay. I don't see the need for them to stay the rest of their lives.

You see how much of a different tone my description gives it? I actually think it's a good idea now. It would definitely advance things at a much much faster pace and at lesser cost.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-10 10:02:45

I'd hope they were there long enough to do some major sceince. It wouldn't be that much more costly to keep them there for an extended period, if not the rest of their lives, if all you did was send the proper equipment. Because to survive at all requires so much technology that the added CELSS would be nothing in comparasion.

I've been a proponent of one way missions, myself. But only if those missions were capable of self-sustenence.

Byron · 2004-01-10 10:59:58

First of all, let me say if you want to do things on the cheap, establish a robot colony on Mars. One way or round-trip, a human mission to Mars is going to cost mega buck$ It is my opinion that if you're going to send people to Mars, it's in the best interests of all to bring them back, whether it be after a one-year stay or a much longer one (provided they have a reasonably comfortable existence there). It would be a waste to strand some of the world's most talented people on Mars forever, when they would have so much to contribute back here on Earth. Practically nothing would guarantee continued excitement over Mars exploration / colonization than returning astronauts giving speechs all over the place about their adventures, not to mention working with Earth-based scientists about all the things they've learned about on Mars.

If you look at the costs of a one-way human mission and the long-term benefits derived from it vs the extra costs of a return mission and the *extra* benefits, I honestly think we would get more value for the dollar on a full-scale return mission. Perhaps most importantly of all, a return human mission will likely have far more support (both public and political) than a one-way mission.

B

RobS · 2004-01-10 20:23:12

You'll never sell such a mission to any government or corporation, so in a way the discussion is moot. A suicide mission symbolizes the wrong moral values for a society, so the opposition will be fierce.

But I am not convinced it is necessary anyway. The technology for getting people there can also get them back. The nuclear reactor to make the return fuel also is needed to support the people.

In the case of Mars Direct, the Hab would go to Mars anyway. The ERV carries the hydrogen to make water and fuel; some of the hydrogen is needed either way. It also has the nuke. The remaining ERV mass--maybe 15 tonnes out of 52 landed on Mars--is what one would "gain." That's not a lot of "gain" for the loss of the human lives.

It would be easier to argue in favor of colonization; using the 15 tonnes for consumables, a greenhouse, etc., and committing to send a similar mass to the "colonists" every two years, possibly with additional colonists.

-- RobS

realmacaw · 2004-01-12 03:32:22

To everyone who has commented so far on my idea to send astronauts one way (even if it is a suicide mission), Thank You! I agree with what everyone has said so far.

I have a degree in philosophy and spent a lot of time studying ethics. This might sound ironic in light of my proposal but it is why I wanted to discuss this idea.

I agree that it would be far better if the astronauts' were given the necessary items to live indefinitely on the planet. Perhaps they could come back years later or stay forever on the planet. This would certainly keep the interest in Mars alive while humans are alive on Mars. It would cause the governments involved to continue to send items to Mars and perhaps more people to Mars. That is vastly different from what happened when we went to the Moon. Twelve men walked on the Moon. They came back heros. Then they were forgotten, or at least they felt that way. I heard they suffered alcohlism, divorce, depression, many problems because they had accomplished their big dream in life and had no other big dream that could equal it. I don't think their return helped us that much. The interest was high and then died. If men continued to live on Mars this would keep Mars alive.

I believe our technology is still primitive. I have doubts that people staying long term would survive. Things would go wrong if given enough time. The dust, radiation, cold and lack of a breathable atmosphere would constantly be enemies. The people might also fight each other if there long enough. Most certainly there would be deaths on the planet and maybe everyone would die. I would hope they were doing good science and it wasn't in vain. It makes me think of the first explorers to Antarctica who perished. They are still remembered and heros today. As harsh as Antarctica is, it is only about 2,000 miles from New Zealand (I've lived in New Zealand). But Mars is so far away that if there was a major problem we wouldn't be able to send supplies in time to save them. Even if the intent is for humans to live there long term and never return or possibly return a decade or so later, the reality is it would be a miracle if they survived. But this approach is better than sending them on a "suicide mission." It might be the same thing, just viewed differently since they have a "slight" fighting chance. I like it.

I don't buy the argument that we can't afford to send our brightest people there and leave them (if we are just talking a few dozen people). It sounds good but no one is that smart or important in life. Everyone is expendible. The traits that make a good "astronaunt" might not be the same traits that make a good "survivor." We don't need the brightest people to go there. We need survivors, highly resourceful pirate type people, perhaps people with no families. It would be best if they never had children since studies in fruit flies and other animals have shown that if animals can put off having offspring they age slower. We would need people with excellent genes who age slowly and their minds stay sharp, who are not prone to cancer, heart disease, diabetes or other serious problems. It would also be best to remove their appendics prior to them leaving. On a short mission, such as to the Moon, you can send the brightest Ph.D.'s who have none of these traits. But for a long term mission these traits would be important.

We also need a different "culture" than NASA has bred. We need people who question decisions, who think for themselves. I stood in Southern Utah in the cold and dark and watched the space shuttle fly over 3 minutes before it disintegrated. It was a shock to learn it disintegrated. It mostly happened because people didn't question decisions. The pilot never questioned the flight worthiness of the craft because NASA told him it was okay. The engineers who did question couldn't get their voices heard. NASA asked for a spy satelite to look at the shuttle but then turned it down so as to not bother the government and make a scene. It was all too polite, too orderly. It was like the English Red Coats marching into battle in formation and getting slaughtered by the nontraditional tactics of the American colonists. That is the character we need on Mars, survivors. People who tell NASA to "Go to Hell" when necessary. We need pirates, not Ph.D.'s. We'll never send anyone dumb. But we don't want geeks up there either. Their genes have got to be fantastic. They have got to be survivors.

Any comments?

Brian.

realmacaw · 2004-01-12 03:47:33

I would like this plan to be called Mars One Way.

Brian.

Rxke · 2004-01-12 03:56:36

... people to tell NASA to 'go to hell'

That will happen sooner rather than later, if only for the psychological barrier from the timelag in comms...
They'll have problems they'll definitely want to solve 'their own way,' not the way some 'behind-a-desk-sitting paperclip benders' suggest...

A good type of people, IMO, would be engineers, mechanics, geologists etc that have experience 'surviving' tours of duty on antarctic outposts or oil rigs. Smart, resourceful and mildly crazy can-do people. (half kidding about the crazy stuff, who in his right mind would want to work in places like those?)

Rxke · 2004-01-12 04:12:31

About the oil-rig people... I've met some of those, and contrary to their outward appearace of being loud-mouthed-constantly drunk, hairy knucled fist-fighters, i was deeply impressed with their intelligence and dedication.
I'm talking about the sea-drilling ops. When they come on land, they party *hard* but as they told me, on the job, being drunk is a sure way to get yourself killed in no time. It's a dangerous place, demanding the best of one's skills, reflexes, ingenuity to get things done.
Also, these people are already used to cramped living environments, intermittent supply of fresh food, communication etc. They're tough as nails, even the 'scientists' among them.

realmacaw · 2004-01-12 04:44:27

The Oil Rig type of people is very good thinking. Excellent!

I don't know if you mean the surface ones or the under water ones. Both might be good.

The person should be non-military, non-NASA, hard as nails. The Oil Rig people are used of working as a group in hellish conditions. They watch out for each other. That is really good thinking. If it can be stopped, no alcohol on Mars would be best.

Brian.

realmacaw · 2004-01-12 04:48:38

Perhaps Norwegian Oil Well workers are best. They seem very robust. They are used of extreme cold and darkness. Their people used to be pirates! They eat a lot of fish and a very good diet, which should be good for their heart and health. The only problem is most Norwegians (and other Scandinavian people) have bad eyesight.

Brian.

realmacaw · 2004-01-12 04:51:56

Russians are used of hard hellish cold conditions but they don't live long (due to alcohlism, poverty, lack of good health care, etc.). But they too would have the right attitude.

Brian.

Bill White · 2004-01-12 08:49:19

realmacaw writes:

I agree that it would be far better if the astronauts' were given the necessary items to live indefinitely on the planet.

Obviously. . .

ontomars352 · 2004-01-12 23:01:49

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

Rxke · 2004-01-12 23:14:13

Great breakdown of traits necc in the several phases of coloniisation, Gary!

Spider-Man · 2004-01-13 00:47:43

As grizzly as it may sound, a human life has a price. And that price is far, far less than the cost to bring humans back from Mars.

I don't mean to seem unkind, Brian, and I along with the rest of us welcome you cordially to these forums, but that is the most inhuman, cynically monstrous thing I've ever heard. Human life is most definitely priceless, and the wonders and virtues of remarkable Mankind are as limitless as my monotonous droning could be on the subject, but that is beside the point. The point is that, to go to a New World, coming back is necessary.

This is simply about dollars.I'd prefer we bring the Astronauts back. But at what cost? If it delays the mission 20 years or 50 years is that delay worth it for 6 lives? Also, all the billions of dolars spent bringing astronauts back we will have to pay.

Let's see... three billion per Mars mission, divided by three hundred million American citizens equals ... ten dollars. God help us that we can't all pitch in a few bucks to save the lives of the very first Martian pioneers.

Sacrifices have been made all through history. Is sending men to Mars worth 6 lives?

It is worth risking six human lives, but not cold-bloodedly predetermining their deaths, for heaven's sakes. What would be the point of going there if we can't come back? everyone would ask. Suicide is already horribly inhuman in war, with Kamikazes and unforgivably, unspeakably treacherous terrorist attacks; you seriously think this is going to inspire a generation to go to Mars?

What a stain it for ever would be on our interplanetary record: human beings the suicidalists. Alien races would call us the Lemmings of the Galaxy.

Spider-Man · 2004-01-13 01:23:34

Perhaps Norwegian Oil Well workers are best. They seem very robust. They are used of extreme cold and darkness. Their people used to be pirates!

Yarr!!

They eat a lot of fish and a very good diet, which should be good for their heart and health. The only problem is most Norwegians (and other Scandinavian people) have bad eyesight.

Russians are used of hard hellish cold conditions but they don't live long (due to alcohlism, poverty, lack of good health care, etc.). But they too would have the right attitude.

Well, as long as we're promoting racial stereotypes, let me advocate my own Italian blood. *Cracks his nuckles cerimoniously.*

Firstly, nearly every famous explorer, from Columbus to Vespucci, Verranzzano to Cabot, was extremely Italian. Therefore it is only fitting that the new explorers be imported from the motherland and trained for Martian expeditions this instant.

Secondly, Italians are incredibly passionate, dedicated as the ceaseless lovers they are in every venture they undertake. They are, however, also quite fickle and unfaithful, and are more likely to steer the ship to Luna or Venus or some other celestial beauty to hear her siren call.

And unfortunately, Italians get quite lonely after being away from their beauteous homeland after too long, for not even the striking Martian scape is adequate to charm them from their Italia bellissima. We're also notorious at making horribly bad jokes.

And as for me Irish side; your standard Hibernian is rather used to discomfort and cramptness and livin' on naught but pototatos as long as he can choke 'em down. As tragedy on the Martian surface is a must, no other but a humble Irishman could do better to mourn the crew once [http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.ph … m6gJ9nQ%3D]everybody's died. And as far as cold and dark goes, nowhere's more inhospitable than emerald ?ire.

And now that we've all (at least I've) made fools of ourselves for actually suggesting that Armageddon had the right idea for enlisting incompitent oil riggers at the very last second to save the world, we may possibly realize that racial chauvinism and overblown stereotypes are a terrible, terrible thing.

Now then, lads, let's all go and drink and drink and drink and drink and then we'll drink some more! we'll dance, and sing, and fight until the early morning light! [http://www.leoslyrics.com/listlyrics.ph … m6gJ9nQ%3D]then we'll throw up, pass out, wake up, and then go drinkin' once again!

atitarev · 2004-01-13 03:00:14

Just FYI, there was a serious plan in the USSR to send people to Mars one way. Some cosmonauts were trained for this and I saw an interview with one of them. He was very upset when the plan was canceled because of its inhumanity.

I agree that this woud be draconian and not necessary at all.

If we compare the human progress in the previous centuries we mad a big leap in the last century. We get impatient, because we want Mars and we want it now. I want to see people on Mars and terraformation started in my lifetime but objectively, even if it happens in 100 years, it's just a moment in history...

Bill White · 2004-01-13 12:08:05

Using Ares, I calculate supplies could be shipped for $10 million per ton. 40 tons to Mars via solar ion propulsion at $400 million per shot. Smaller rockets could deliver less for less. Verizon Wireless (for example) might well fund a supply shot in exchange for marketing and advertisiing video filmed on Mars.

A less crass method would be to fundraise with the world's major universities. Science findings (fossils?) are kept private until supplies are sent. Hey Oxford (or Harvard)! Do you want to see microscopic photos of Marsian fossils? Send 40 tons of batteries, beans and biscuit mix, or else. Water? We mine our own water.

No need for suicide.

How many tons per year would these guys need to stay alive indefinitely?

atitarev · 2004-01-13 19:11:52

No need for suicide.

That's right Bill,

The idea of no return, without any suicides is more appealing to me and it would probably work too. I mean if people are sent to Mars and provided with all things necessary to survive for a long period (10-30 years) - just the basics with a hope that supplies would come some day, maybe with landers. There will be people willing to stay on Mars for good, ready to take the risk. They would be the pioneers, first colonizers.

Although I don't think it would less expensive than a return mission, it would be good for future missions. I'd prefer the colonizers learned to grow their own food on Mars, at least plant food (at the beginning). I bet there would be a few hundred volunteers - vegetarians or someone ready to become ones. There could be issues with keeping orders on such a colony. It's something the first colonizers would need to face and it would be up to them, not to anyone on Earth.

With the time missions will get cheaper.

DannyITR · 2004-01-13 20:56:47

Designing and launching a cheap mission with low chances of coming back would be considered murder (even first degree murder, because it was designed like this on purpose), if some of the astronauts die... And *I* would surely support death sentence for anyone involved.

This is the stupidiest post I have ever read on any discussion forum in my life. You want to execute NASA engineers and planners!! The death penalty is for evil people: serial killers, rapists, murderers etc. Saying you think the mission planners are in this category is like comparing the US to Nazi Germany It's that bad. Bin Laden and his friends like to do that because they know it's outrageous and it gets under people's skin. That's how I feel about your post.

Just thought I'd voice my opinion on your morales.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-10 07:19:03

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#2 2004-01-10 08:21:18

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#3 2004-01-10 09:44:42

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#4 2004-01-10 09:55:33

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#5 2004-01-10 10:00:04

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#6 2004-01-10 10:02:45

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#7 2004-01-10 10:59:58

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#8 2004-01-10 20:23:12

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#9 2004-01-12 03:32:22

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#10 2004-01-12 03:47:33

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#11 2004-01-12 03:56:36

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#12 2004-01-12 04:12:31

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#13 2004-01-12 04:44:27

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#14 2004-01-12 04:48:38

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#15 2004-01-12 04:51:56

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#16 2004-01-12 08:49:19

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#17 2004-01-12 23:01:49

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#18 2004-01-12 23:14:13

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#19 2004-01-13 00:47:43

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#20 2004-01-13 01:23:34

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#21 2004-01-13 03:00:14

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#22 2004-01-13 12:08:05

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#23 2004-01-13 19:11:52

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

#24 2004-01-13 20:56:47

Re: Send Astronauts One Way - A Planned Suicide Mission

Board footer