One way trip to Mars?

Acidrain · 2004-05-02 19:34:34

The only way I see a trip to Mars is to be a one-way trip to Mars.

1. Send all the supplies the group will need a year ahead of the Human Launch.
2. Send Habitats.
3. Build habitats for future people to come to build a type of colony.
4. Send a group of 32 of races and international partners.
5. The group needs to be made up of people of all trades.

I can’t think of anything else what do you think?Also do U think that the international community would send people to mars on a one way ticket?

By the way this is my first post, hello all!!!! Acidrain

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 19:43:44

Welcome Acidrain!

I agree that when we go to Mars it should be a colonizing effort. We've recently been citing the advantages of expansion vs exploration. Most of us agree that expansion is a more unifing effort than exploration. Why don't you flesh out your ideas a little more. i'd be intrested to hear what you have to add to the discussion.

idiom · 2004-05-03 03:49:34

I would go one way... with untested equipment to. But then I am a nutter.

And if you don't mind only lasting a few years then its cheaper than even mars direct.

No govt would ever pay for it though.

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 09:49:20

Ah yes, but the private sector just might. Say Hilton put up the money to get a small 3 person crew to Mars. Assuming no freak accidents, the crew could go about making the base bigger and better. With a nuclear powered return vehicle, the crew could even make fuel on Mars and send the empty vehicle back to LEO where it could meet with a simple Soyuz launch. A colozining effort could begin with a few billion easily if the chance of success is reduced to 75 percent, which I think is most acceptable considering the alternative is to not go at all.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-03 16:06:16

This sounds like a reasonable approach...

The government finally gets around to a flags and footprints Mars mission or two.

While NASA is developing this mission, a private company, led by a bunch of rich, sci-fi lovin', successful, dot-commers, starts up a colonization effort. Instead of using throw-away vehicles like NASA, they focus on building a reusable space transportation system. It would have at its core dedicated space vehicles that would cycle between the planets. With these vehicles in place, there would be every reason to keep filling them with settlers. (Don't want those assets to go to waste, you know.)

This way the private company could avoid having to do priliminary exploration. NASA would pay for all of that. The colonization effort would follow hot on the heals of NASA's exploration missions. They would know where to land, and what equipment to bring. They would also have no pressure to bring anybody back alive. NASA would have already proven that it was do-able.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-03 16:36:59

Here's another way to spur interest in Mars as a place to live:

The company that sets up the cyclers should pay all the early settlers million-dollar salaries. Even if those salaries are inflated it will give the people of Earth the idea that Mars=Millionaires. Decades after the salaries have deflated people will still think Mars' streets are paved with gold. That is roughly analogous to America is the 18th-19th centuries. Heck, immigrants still flood into the U.S. with the hopes of making a lot of money, although I'm sure they understand that we use asphault to pave our streets.

It has a nice ring to it doesn't it? Mars: The World of Millionaires.

And just think -- All of us space-geeks would be the first to go, so...hats off to my fellow future millionaires.

deagleninja · 2004-05-03 17:34:36

Here's a thought......bring back the indentured servant! Expanding on what Ian said, ordinary slobs with good work histories and a pedestrian understanding of Mars could travel there to do the work for the wealthy. Food has to be grown, waste has to be processed, air quality has to be monitered, etc. Your indentured servants sign waivers to release the company sending them of responcibility should an accident happen. Like Ian said, pay them a million a year till they work off their 20 year or so debt. In that amount of time you can creat a lot. America has over 100 billionaires and god knows how many millionaires. If even 1 percent of those people would like to live on Mars in luxury for the price of 50 million then you have dozens of customers.

Pools, gyms, internet access, the works! A resort for the wealthy. You could actually sell land on Mars to these millionaires and rent out the hired hands to creating projects paid for by people on Earth, be it industrial or scientific. Yep, I'm more sure than ever that colonization is the way to go.

idiom · 2004-05-06 02:05:27

um...

For the first ten years your personal space will be limited to a few domes and a bunch of tunnels.

You won't be building a homestead and riding horse back for miles. Life will really really be quite crappy.

Its for the sort of people who become monks, climb mountains or do deep sea diving.

So said billionaire has to believe in a cause. AND he has to be really bored of being a billionaire.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-06 12:29:04

I think we could find some bored billionaires who would want to take an extended vacation on Mars. Three years away from Earth wouldn't scare them all off, would it? Talk about a status symbol...

[read this in a British accent while pinching your nose]

"Oh yes, Gertrude, while I lived on Mars...[crowd gets quiet to listen in]...I came to realize...[fill in the blank, here]

It would be the 21st century equivalent to the 19th century safari.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-06 12:42:05

By the way, when I mentioned that all the first colonists should be millionaires I didn't mean that they would live like millionaires back on Earth. No, no! Everything on Mars would cost so much money things would be about even. It's like the salaries in Alaska compared to those in Iowa. Alaskans make at least double the wages, but everything they buy is about double the cost.

The point of making everybody a millionaire was to lure the suckers back here into paying passage to Mars thinking they would get rich quick. This scheme would be started by the Earth-Mars transportation company to later benefit the same company.

"Capitalism at its finest!" --
"You mean most unethical?" -- ???
"Isn't that what I just said?" -- :;):

C M Edwards · 2004-05-06 15:11:41

One-way tickets don't promise to be cheaper than return, because of all the extra stuff colonists have to develop, test, and bring with them. However...

Given a choice between two missions with the same cost, I prefer the one that yields a return, not just a return ticket.

Colonization is the way to go.

idiom · 2004-05-06 17:03:32

It would be cheaper if you pulled an Australia and sent convicts. Especially lifers or condemed ones.

It takes the pressure off testing everything before hand.

Acidrain · 2004-05-07 23:05:22

Hi All
Anyone think that a person would be in their right mind to make that kind of decision of a one way ticket to Mars and the possibility of never coming home? How could a leader of a nation make that kind of decision, or would that be political suicide? But what Ive found is most people would do it no matter the dangers. I just don’t think i could image what would have to be sent ahead of the humans arriving on Mars, there would have to be allot of equipment and food and such.

What I would like to see is the USA give 1% of their or our GDP to the exploration of Mars colony, and an infrastructure for Mars Colony. Or something on that level of support to get us to a point of colonizing on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years, some time in my life time. I get so tired of hearing that it cost this much and the technology isn’t their for this type of exploration, its BS I think.

So what do you think?

Cheers

Acidrain

Ian Flint · 2004-05-09 21:42:09

I'm with you all the way Acidrain.

Congress should just pass a permanent bill earmarking X billion dollars to support the colonization of Mars. It could easily be the amount spent on the current shuttle and ISS operations. What is that, about $7 billion?

deagleninja · 2004-05-10 19:22:22

As nice as it would be for Congress to allocate 1 percent of our GDP to a Mars colonizing effort, it won't happen. Our GDP is much greater than our annual budget which is 2.2 trillion dollars. Out of the budget, not the GDP, NASA currently gets only .6 percent.

C M Edwards-I follow ya, but it could be cheaper. If we send automations beforehand to prepare onsite food and other resources, then we don't need to ship everything needed to sustain humans.

Bill White · 2004-05-10 20:03:38

There are other ways that taxes to tap into the global economy.

Given US budget deficits and the "War on Terror" and questions that would arise about which Americans would be chosen to colonize Mars (an affirmative action nightmare, right?) finding another artery of the globalized world economy to draw blood from might well be prudent.

idiom · 2004-05-11 03:40:17

Whatever happened to the days where a whole colony just showed up and tried to live. Sometimes they all died. In one memorable oopsie 200 colonists in Central America all died of Malaria I think it was... The whole colony died.

Why does everybody want to move into a hotel?

deagleninja · 2004-05-11 06:17:26

Unfortunately, we aren't talking about desperate people traveling in leaky boats. Any mission to Mars, even Mars Direct or something cheaper is going to be a huge investment for someone. If the russians pull off their claim and go to Mars on 5 billion dollars then that's about as close to a leaky boat we are going to get, but still they are coming back. However, making it to Mars on 5 billion would go a long way towards a colonizing effort.

MarsDog · 2004-05-11 06:28:45

Yes, build the hotel first; No use roughing it. The robots, at this stage, are the economical way to go, improving methods until they are reliable for humans.
-
Even if the astronauts are expendable, favorable public sentiment is the key. That means an entertaining science fiction type setting.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-02 19:34:34

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#2 2004-05-02 19:43:44

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#3 2004-05-03 03:49:34

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#4 2004-05-03 09:49:20

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#5 2004-05-03 16:06:16

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#6 2004-05-03 16:36:59

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#7 2004-05-03 17:34:36

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#8 2004-05-06 02:05:27

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#9 2004-05-06 12:29:04

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#10 2004-05-06 12:42:05

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#11 2004-05-06 15:11:41

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#12 2004-05-06 17:03:32

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#13 2004-05-07 23:05:22

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#14 2004-05-09 21:42:09

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#15 2004-05-10 19:22:22

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#16 2004-05-10 20:03:38

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#17 2004-05-11 03:40:17

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#18 2004-05-11 06:17:26

Re: One way trip to Mars?

#19 2004-05-11 06:28:45

Re: One way trip to Mars?

Board footer