E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
In an artist's conception, a Mars explorer surveys one of the Red Planet's grand canyons.
Will the first explorers to visit Mars come back to Earth? Or does it actually make more sense to leave them there? The idea of sending the Red Planet's first settlers on one-way trips has been kicking around for years, and now two researchers have published a paper in the Journal of Cosmology laying out how such missions could play out between now and 2035.
"It is important to realize that this is not a 'suicide mission,'" Washington State University's Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Arizona State University's Paul Davies write. "The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony."
In a WSU news release, Davies said the concept follows the model set by past human settlements of new lands. "It would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return," he said.
Back in the mid-1990s, rocket scientist and Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin pointed out that "colonization is, by definition, a one-way trip," and since then experts have debated the best way to do one-way. Four years ago, X Prize co-founder Peter Diamandis suggested setting up a private-sector "Mars Citizenship Program," with volunteers kicking in from $10,000 to $1 million each, About 100 candidates would be chosen by lottery to take the trip to a Red Planet colony prepared for them by robots. (Scroll down through this Cosmic Log archive for details, plus reader reaction.)
Davies' colleague at ASU, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, caused a stir last year by reviving the idea of one-way trips to Mars. Because much of the anticipated cost of a voyage to Mars was wrapped up in getting the voyagers back home again, eliminating the return trip would make the mission much more affordable. What's more, he suggested that the Mars voyagers might not be fit enough to make the return trip, due to radiation exposure. "As cruel as it may sound, the astronauts would probably best use their remaining time living and working on Mars rather than dying at home," Krauss wrote in his New York Times op-ed.
Schulze-Makuch and Davies don't think life on Mars would be so bad, judging by the scenario they lay out:
- First, robots would identify a suitable location for a colony, based on the availability of a natural shelter (such as a lava tube cave) and the availability of water (in the form of ice, of course) as well as minerals and nutrients. Robo-construction crews could make the place habitable for humans.
- The first one-way missions might involved two spaceships, each with a two-person crew. One of the astronauts should be a trained physician, and all of them should have scientific and technical know-how as well as a passion for research and exploration.
- Those first colonists should be beyond reproductive age, due to the concerns about radiation as well as reduced life expectancy in a frontier environment.
With time, a series of cave-centered biospheres could be built for the growing Martian community, with beefed-up radiation protection. "Probably several decades after the first human mission, the colony's population might have expanded to about 150 individuals, which would constitute a viable gene pool to allow the possibility of a successful long-term reproduction program," the researchers write. "New arrivees and possibly the use of genetic engineering would further enhance genetic variety and contribute to the health and longevity of the colonists."
Schulze-Makuch and Davies say the Mars colony would provide a long-term base for exploring the Red Planet and looking for traces of ancient or extant life. It would serve as an insurance policy for the species, just in case a killer asteroid or a killer virus endangered life on Earth. And it also could "offer a springboard for human/robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt."
The researchers don't delve into the costs or the detailed logistics for one-way missions, but they do note that NASA's space vision calls for just the kinds of heavy-lift rockets and robotic capabilities that would mesh with future voyages to Mars. "We estimate that a reasonable time line for establishing a permanent unmanned base with robots would be 20 years, with the first human contingent arriving shortly thereafter," they write. "The main impediment is the narrow vision and the culture of political caution that now pervades the space programs of most nations."
Would you agree? Or would it be even tougher to find intelligent, healthy volunteers willing to spend the rest of their lives on a frozen, radiation-blasted world? Whenever we've posed this question before, a fair number of people say they'd definitely go. Four years ago, 374 of the 1,169 msnbc.com users who responded to a Live Vote said they'd be willing to "pay a substantial price" for a one-way trip, assuming that the risk was acceptable. This time around, I'd love to hear your reasons for taking the one-way trip. (Or not taking it!) Just leave a comment below.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Youth are the ones full of adventure and thrill-seeking (and they have a lot less fear then older individuals). They would be the first to go. Getting someone in their 50's or older to make that trip would be pretty difficult. We are so concerned with safety though it will never happen. If we were this focused on not doing anything dangerous Columbus would never have sailed across the ocean.
With the number of people over 50 now days, I'm sure you can find a couple thousand who have the spirit of adventure still in them. Heck, I know a several people that way. Finding somebody of age to do this would be easy.
Personally, I wouldn't want to go on this mission because I have a wife and son. No matter how much I would love to go into space, and even to another planet, it isn't a large enough want for me to be willing to leave my family. But if you find somebody with little to no family, and a sense of adventure, you will likely find somebody willing to do this.
Obviously, prior to sending anyone to Mars, they would need to live in an environment here on earth created to simulate ALL the conditions AND GREAT LIMITATIONS they will be faced with on Mars for at least 2 years. I would anticipate a drop-out rate of 75% once they experience the reality of spending THEIR LIFE on Mars.
I am 52, Call me I can be on the launch pad in an hour. Good by wife and kids. Send me an email from time to time.
The question we should be asking is this: What will we introduce into a new invironment? How and what these chages will effect the invironment on mars and the human colonies in turn. Could anything on earth be changed further down the road when travel becomes more simplified for round trips? We need to be ready for anything, even the chance of something really nasty (like a strain of bacteria we haven't seen). Any time we look into something we know little to nothing about, the great chance of discovering something new-to what ever end.
Good point on the bacteria aspect Russell. Whenever one of these great voyages or ideas are planned out, it's usually the most trivial things that derail it.
And I do not agree with the age aspect. People over 40s/50s will not deal with these environments like a 25 year old counterpart would. We don't send retirees to war, and this, essentially, would be pretty similar.
I'm 45 and I'd go. We don't need 25 year olds riding skate boards around Mars and making "Jackass" movies. It will be work 24.5 hours a day, 7 days a week, 668.6 days per year. Older folk would also have more focus and more of a mind to keep their heads focused, at least I believe older folk would tend to that more than younger. Exceptions to everything, of couse. Besides, Neil Armstrong was 39 when he went to the moon. They haven't exactly been sending whipper snappers into space.
I wouldn't mind being sent up with a few 20 something women, though. Oops, did I say that out loud?
I firmly believe it is very commendable that there are actually a significant number of volunteers for a project such as this. I also think that we (mankind) do indeed need to get our species and as many others as we can off this planet and into space, but I think that the idea addresses by this article and the groups that were referenced in this article are indeed of very "Narrow Vision".
Why send colonists to Mars for long periods where their bodies will loose muscle and bone mass over extended time. If we send people for just a couple years, (a necessary endeavor), they might be able to undertake precautions to remediate the problem, but to plan to send people for lifetimes and to commit their offspring to being born and raised in such an environment would be to create a whole people whose descendents would never be able to return to a normal Earth gravity. Not only that, but they would forever be dependent on "Help" from the Earth to even maintain the Mars colony.
On top of that, if they were able to temporarily create an atmosphere on Mars and wanted to bring other Earth species, those species would undergo the same degradation.
To consider genetic manipulation as a viable alternative or aid in this process is just adding "mad science" into the mix.
A much greater vision is to realize that the Earth is a biosphere and any plans that we have for Mars should be with that in mind.
Mars has had periods where it had a significant atmosphere, but those periods were relatively short because of its low mass. We need to solve the "mass" problem first – yes, it is a BIG Job.
As mentioned in the article we on Earth are significantly concerned about the threat of asteroid impacts which have plagued our planet throughout its history and contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs. There are numerous tracking programs looking for such objects. What we need to do now is work on what can be done with them once they are found.
The solution is not to change the orbits just to miss Earth, a temporary solution, but to direct them and other objects, in the correct orbits, to hit Mars. This is the only real viable long term solution to terra-forming Mars.
This will surely disappoint all the "Mars Now" people, but it is the best way.
Sally I am not sure if mass loading by asteroid is the best way to terraform Mars but it is certainly an interesting one.
As for the debate over young vs. old colonists, I suggest a mixture of both, as every other colony has included.
Low gravity and the subsequent reduction in bone and muscle mass is a problem IF you intend to return to earth, but if not what is the problem? Sure over time there will be a drift in the genome let's not forget the effects of the radiation and different conditions after all and they will likely become a different sub-species of H2Sapiens, but so what? They will still be our kin, and carry our greater self into a new world.
Others have mentioned the posibility of finding a particularly nasty "bug" on Mars, not to mention those WE will be bringing there, but that is the risk in all colonization efforts. We adapt or die, it is to steal a quote from Doctor David Suzuki "the Nature of Things", and always has been. (yeah I'm a fan of his, what can I say)
Life makes the effort to colonise new places all the time, and as part of the living universe we are no different, so I for one think it is worth the effort. My only regret is I am not fit and young enough to take the trip myself.
Heck, why not just send Obama there? His politics are out of this world, no one knows where he was born and he can dig some big holes in mars instead of our wallets. Best of all, we could get him as far away from this planet as we can.
I would be more than willing to pay what I have to and take the risk for this adventure. At this time I am too young for the journey, 27 years of age. However, I don't think this trip will be available tomorrow, so I still have a chance....
Sending Obama is the best idea so far !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tsk peppy wrong topic for political gibes...
This could never work, human nature would take over, and people would kill each other!
Why not start by sending the scientists that are setting up the program, they would be the ones who know the most about it.
Who would give up everything they have in life to go to nothing. It would be one thing to take an adventure but we already know there is nothing there. At least Columbus knew he could turn around.
The poll question is:
The most popular answer which 37% selected is:
This demonstrates that a large number of people did not think through or comprehend the question. It's like death. You can't take it with you. There are no malls on Mars. If I wanted to take a one way trip to Mars, I'd spend my entire net worth on the trip.
While 374 of the 1,169 responders last time said they would go, they were surely responding to a hypothetical question. When push comes to shove and this scenario is a possibility, good luck finding that big a percentage of people willing to leave Earth permanently.
Would your epitaph read that you were a fool for choosing death on a cold, barren planet. A planet "made ready" for human explorers by robots which were supposed to build you habitable living quarters but like the slum lord at the tenement in Brooklyn, you find the hot water doesn't work and the draft is sucking out all of your heat and oxygen! I think I'll wait for the Ion Drive Engines that will get us to and from, very quickly, instead of the chemical rocket Prairie Schooners we have today.....but at 59, and being the sharp old bird that I am, it would be my legacy to leave my kids and grand kids for generations to come. Sign me up........
Your first thought and your last do not mesh. Columbus was 41 years old when he discovered the new world. At that time the average life expectancy was around 50 years old and he definitely would have been considered “beyond reproductive age”. I don’t see much difference between people now and then. When Columbus made his journey most people, young and old, would have considered it unsafe and actually believed he would fall off the edge of the world. And yet an old man, relatively speaking, still made the attempt. I doubt they’d have much trouble coming up with volunteers who were in their 50’s who would be willing to make the journey. Beside “beyond reproductive age” is a subjective idea. I’m 39 and have no intention of having any more kids so I don’t think they’d be limited to those who were 50+.
I wouldn't go if it cost an earthly fortune because it wouldn't be very kids. If it cost you an earthly fortune to go, then you wouldn't have anything left to pass down to your children. I can stay here, spend time with them, and give them a little inheritance when I die. Better than spending all I have and not giving them anything.
I'm 47, married with adult children, I'd go without a doubt. I'm just about done my bucket list in life here on earth, what a wonderful new list it would be on another planet.
The hardest part of the decision is realizing your life will be shortened significantly, but look at the plus side of that, being part of the biggest adventure of mankind. Where do I sign up?
Count us in. I am 56 with a BSEE and an MBA. My wife is 47 with a BS in Math, an MS in Hydrology, and a BS in Nursing. I can handle the electronics and manage the mission. She can do the accounting, find the water, and handle the heart attacks of us old farts! We just need another 4 years until our youngest graduates from high school. Please vist us at our Mars B&B.
kennedy116 I think if there was a feasible process outlined for travel and colonisation you would find more and more lined up.
AFTER the first nuclear bomb is detonated by an extreme radical arm of a religion. I suspect you would find 100% participation.
Sign me up. 52 yoa
Actually Backcountry what I meant was that back in Columbus's time people WEREN'T as concerned with the safety aspect as they are now. That's what made the trip possible then and makes it harder now. Our government is so scared for their to be a handful of lives lost (although not when it comes to sending kids to war ironically) that they almost want a gurantee that it will be 100% safe. And since the government is really the only one that can send anyone to Mars, whereas Columbus (in theory) could have made the journey without government backing, our political climate will never be supportive. If Columbus had failed most people wouldn't have known or cared, whereas if he succeded the nation claimed new land. If a Mars expedition succeeds it's perceived as a whole lot of money for little (initial) return, if it fails it's political disaster for the Party that supported it.
Sign me up. What could go wrong?
Famous last words
Lol, well, if I had the money, I would love to go. Then again, I do have a panic disorder and I'm claustriphobic. That probably won't be very good if I would share the same colony (which probably won't be too big) with a bunch of other people. And I'm not a particularly big fan of radiation, so...meh, maybe it's not a very good idea, I don't know. I know I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life up there anyway.
Anyhow, precautions first. Let's not send anyone out there until we know some way of protecting them from the radiation!
LIFE: Nobody gets out alive.
@CynicL1
Except Jesus Christ
Some of us don't believe in fairy tales.
I think Elisha aslo never died but was taken up to heaven in a similar fashion to Jesus.
I think it's a great idea. But would people still except the idea of spending the rest of their lives there,after they arrive. Opps too late,their stuck. Who would police such a community? It's a long way to send a cop! It may be that the community would not listen to orders from earth.
I dunno. 911 response times wouldn't be that much worse than I've seen in my home town.
You're seriously worried about policing? They'd probably deal with conflict the same way most people do. Their biggest need for police would be if someone went insane with homesickness and they'll probably have a cell or something to isolate someone like that.
My concerns about one way Mars colonization are the bad press NASA might receive if some of the colonists end up like some of those whiny brats on the Real World and constantly whine in public about wanting to go home. You really can't know how someone's going to react in a situation like this until they're actually in it. Also, I'm not sure the folks who'd sign up for something like this are the ones we'd really want as a reserve gene pool.
In many psychological studies they've completed on long-term isolation, the group usually turns against the command center to some degree. This is a common experience documented by NASA in their shuttle missions and ISS stints. The group becomes consumed with a "us VS them" mentality.
Please, people, survival would be paramount. Police would be the last thing you would need. No drive by gang shootings will be going on, unless from UFO's, maybe.
Dont wake the Ghosts of Mars, Ice Cube wont be there to save you.
I would love to take a one way trip to Mars. I am currently in medical school, but my first choice of profession would be an astronaut. I have talked to my friends and family about such an idea. This being a one way trip does ensure no return and death upon an uninhabited planet. With this, religion and faith might play a key role to keep up spirits, although I consider myself an atheist and would love to embark on this opportunity. The only thing I fear is not being able to see this happen in my lifetime.
Your Student loans and FICA score will still follow you buddy. You can't get out of it. You're going to Mars? Sallie Mae and Wells Fargo are going' with you. Yes, the accept Mars Buckz (when invented) and/or human blood.
I.Q test, first, at least 140, red hair and freckles (camoflage).
Hmm, sounds like me! I'll have to check my schedule.
If I weren't married, and the crew were all women, I'd kill to be on that trip. LOL
Lazuras Long?
You would seriously want to be stuck in a contained area with 99% women and you? You should go to mars, you're very brave.
You sound like a Heinlein fan. (I like red hair and freckles too)
All things aside, the person that said the people willing to do this may not be the best from the gene pool selection seems to have forgotton how the US was started.
I don't think we should send people to Mars until a way is found to protect them from radiation. What's the point in going to Mars if you're going to die a slow, painful death?
I hate to break it to you pal, you're just as likely to die a slow, painful death here on Earth. May as well be doing something really awesome and unique like being a Mars Colonist while you're at it.
I'm pretty sure that they will find some way of protection from radiation before sending anyone Will RC. Why would they even waist the time to do so without confronting such an obvious problem.
Hence why we're not saying people will be leaving on this mission tomorrow or even within 2 decades. Time is needed to develop the necessary tech.
Roanoke didn't stop the colonization of the eastern Atlantic seaboard.
thats the whole point of the caves
Pfffft....Die a slow painful death on earth or mars. Let the individual decide. What is the point of life period?!
Same thing happens all the time on Earth
If I were thirty years younger I would jump at the chance! I would have some serious concerns such as, even in a biosphere, where would I be able to plant my next meal. I believe that we have the technology to shield against radiation and the thin Martian atmosphere, but the chance to explore and learn the secrets that this could bring would be worth a lifetime! By the way, if you want an old guy with a working mind, I will leave tomorrow!
Buzz ditto dude, ditto!
I remember reading about terraforming Mars with robots piloting ice asteroids from the asteroid belt into Mars orbit. Millions of tons of water each, which is also the fuel used to divert them. In low Mars orbit, they ablate into water vapor, and Mars gets clouds.
That's the kind of thinking we need. Great job.
I also remember reading about terraforming Mars, but it was a bit different. It involves us pumping @!$%#loads of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This would help with air pressure, and would heat up the planet. The only problem, is that if too much is pumped into the air, the sunlight will be diffused.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that Mars is geologically dead - without an active magnetosphere resulting from the churning of a liquid metal core, it can't deflect the sun's radiation. Thus, only the barest of atmospheric gases remains - everything else is blasted into space by the solar wind.
I really doubt starting up Mars' engine, as it were, is within our foreseeable technological ability. Any attempt to thicken the atmosphere and make it habitable for life as we know it is therefore unfeasible.
drilling down to the core and placing a nuke there, maybe that might start the chain reaction again? Nukes for a good cause? I dont know, just throwing it out there (did not do the math)
Edward not likely to work, it is a spinning molten metalic core that generates the magnetic field and the amount of heat you would need to add to the core to melt enough mass is beyond my ability to calculate.
That is also assuming that mars HAS a metalic core in the first place.
Exodite, domes on the other hand would be entirely possible.
I'd go as long as I could get a decent book deal and movie rights, proceeds to go to my family. I'd also need a good interplanetary Internet feed.
Regardless of the speed of the connection, there will always be a lag of between 6.4 and 44.8 minutes for your page request to get from Mars to Earth and back. This is also assuming that the data stream could go directly between planets when Mars is on the other side of the sun. In reality, you'd have to route the data through a satellite or two to get around the interferance of the sun, so the maximum time will be longer! Probably the best solution would be to set up a browser to start automatically and preload all the pages you frequent before you wake up or while you're working on other things.
You could pioneer the Mars net. Of course, the only people on would be the ones you see everyday, but you have to start somewhere.
Oh don't even suggest. I'd hate to see the Martian equivalent of FB.
Snicker more like MyInSpace
Are you kidding me? I would love to go on such a legendary and epic adventure, no matter what the outcome, to say you traveled to another planet... where do I sign up?
And who would you say that to? Everyone there also went to another planet.
I'd LOVE to participate too, being able to actually experience what we've only read in science fiction novels...that would be a GREAT experience!
Anyone else interested in going in about 20 years? I'm studying Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Computer Science right now, though in only my second year of under-grad I . But with a little good fortune I think it is feasible. Plan is either to attempt to amass wealth within the main global economy or create an independent society dedicated to technological and scientific growth. Then use the resources from either of those efforts to create a colony with a similar culture. The moons of Jupiter might be a more resource rich target than Mars though.
Its great to have all that education, but at the same time, I dont think they are looking for desk job type people... more likely smart but actually hard laborers when you think about it. Actual mechanics, construction workers, etc. think about that before you make such a choice.
Creating a society sounds awesome.
Anyways, our own moon would be the logical first step. It always has been.
Send robot diggers to the moon to begin digging out a cave or constructing radiation shield bricks from resources located in situ. Then send more supplies. Keep sending supplies and robots until the first off world colony (i.e. - 20 to 50 people) can survive for at least a few years without more supplies and there are at least five or more colony modules ready to be completed and/or tested.
Each of the colony modules would be independent and have enough resources for a year. This way the first crew can choose between which one they wish to inhabit. These astronauts will stay in the lander for the first few weeks while completing the first module or two, allowing them to move into either one.
Then that first crew must build more colony modules and the Earth would probably send more supplies anyways. Continue in this fashion until there is a viable and self sustainable colony on our nearest celestial body.
@Edward Duffy: Most astronauts are Ph.Ds. Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science would be incredibly useful on Mars because unlike in most Earth-bound situations, almost all of the machinery on Mars will be advanced robotics. An engineer/programmer will be able to troubleshoot problems much more easily than a mechanic... An engineer would also be useful in constructing habitats on Mars. I will say that in terms of exploration, geology and chemistry are probably the top two fields to be in, but if the aim is to build a colony over time, the researchers can come later.
Agree completely with PaleBlueDot. The first people sent to any Mars colony would be either engineers or scientists of various types. Those folks can do manual labor too. They'll probably bring some experienced robotics or fuel cell technicians too but probably no mechanics and definitely no construction workers - at least not in the first couple of decades.
Creation of an independent society would amass it's own wealth for you and the society if done right. You should combine the two ideas. Of course helping to create an independent society on Mars would also work and you would pretty much have access to whatever "wealth" there was considering your colony would be the only ones creating it. Anyway, all of your thoughts are good ones. Don't listen to the nay sayers. All of your education and skills would be useful and you will certainly do labor as well. There will be no "desk jobs" for the colonists. There wont be enough people for that level of physical specialisation.
I'd be 36 by then...maybe, depends on what I major in and how much money I have. I'm already an avid artist, but I've had my share of biological and medical studies. I regularly browse the internet on many subjects, and I have an undying curiousity for things I don't know. If I were to ever go up there, I might write books or paint or even make CGI movies to help entertain colonists, and tend to the gardens and be a medical assistent. I'm not very social, but I do enjoy the prescence of other people, helping people, and giving out some good advice. I'm pretty healthy, though I have a panic disorder and asthma (though I haven't had any attacks for years, maybe it's gone). Anyhow, I wouldn't go up there if they don't figure out what to do about the radiation.
I don't think Jennifer is going. Don't think they'll need many books, paintings or CGI movies while trying to SURVIVE.
I think the panic disorder and asthma would be a definite disqualifier, not to mention that one of her 'qualifications' is that she 'regularly browse[s] the internet on many subjects...' - congrats...
I believe we used to call that commitment. I am all for it but the thing is we will need to equip them with something we have lost. Freethinking.
No way would I go on a suicide mission from a perpetual blast of radiation and where would I find food if the biogarden failed. Definitely not like taking a boat across the ocean on the life supporting planet we inhabit. Way to soon to plan something like this....they couldn't even get the biosphere project to work for a year and there is oxygen outside of it. I'm in reasearch but they need to plan plan plan before it comes to fruition.
The aricle mentions robo-construction workers making the planet habitable. Let's see if this is possible before sending the first crew.
.
I'm going to Mars, my wife to Venus
I say we round up our career criminals and life-sentence inmates and ship them off and watch how it all unfolds from here.
Like how Austrailia was done.
Also the setting for Starcraft.
Everyone should read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein... same concept, good read, libertarian type book.
You got to be kidding me. Volunteer? To die? pretty soon? On Mars????? Your a lunatutic. But hey. I love watching lunatics on TV. Take TV cameras with you so I can watch you foam at the mouth. :)
I am sure Ryan Seacrest is already in the works for getting the rights to that reality show. He is holding open casting calls for "Keeping up with the martians" - PUKE! On the plus side, maybe he will go with.
I'm in. I've been saying I would volunteer for this for years!
sign me up, to start a new civilization and no religion ..
Great idea. And please take the rest of the cry babies with you who are always offended by something but what they should be. The rest of us will chip in on rocket fuel.
Not asking why but how would you eliminate religion? People will bring their beliefs with them. Even if you send only atheists some will eventually change their mind. Would you send them back to Earth?
Those who found God would just be pushed out an air lock. At least thats my theory on what the person would suggest. But beware, given enough time, those with religion would form a plot and push the oppressors out the air lock and then take over.
By the way, It hasn't been said yet, so here it goes. It is Bush's fault we haven't colonized Mars yet. LOL. I pray to God people understand I'm kidding.
lol
Actually, it could be Reagan's fault. Carter had set aside money to use for the research into alternative fuels, which was taken away during the Reagan admin.
It wasn't taken away..he traded it all for jelly beans.
Just what everything needs. Mankind trying to move into space. People have already trashed up,poisoned and all but destroyed this planet. Time to start on another i guess.
Well there's a certain logic in moving away from the green, lush, fragile biosphere to a land that's already blasted and ruined. I mean, can't cause much environmental damage if there's no environment, right?
There is always an environment no matter how small there is something that we will change by going there. like North America had no ground worms before the old worlders hit the ground.
A bacteria/virus nanochild even on a supposed dead planet will make a change......
I really doubt that...
Ground worms? Sounds like someone has been at the happy juice a little to much. Worms are some of the oldest forms of underground life on earth (set a side from bact./micros). I do agree with you on one thing: If we go, we will introduce and change. What could evolve and change?
You just want to go to mars to find martians to "Russell" the muscle
Sign me up! I will leave today or next decade. I've been blessed to see much of this world and the thrill and privilege of seeing a new one is beyond my wildest dream.
I'm 55 now and will have 20 to 30 more healthy years which should be a useful expectancy for this project. The risk of a shortened life from accident or radiation exposure is a small price to pay.
Give us seeds, tools and some raw materials to start. As long as we can supply energy and O2 at the living site, send a dozen men and women with a variety of knowledge and experience and this project will succeed.
If they're going to make a radiation impermeable biosphere on Mars, why not just make one on Earth and save the cost of the trip. Reason would suggest that the biosphere would also be impermeable to viruses as well. Now, if we're going to get hit by an asteroid.....
Much thinner atmosphere than Earth... Small rocks from deep space reach the surface of Mars all the time. The 33% of Earth gravity make the newly arriving settlers feel like supermen (and women). After being there a few years they're weak as kittens. They learn to be very kind to the newest arrivals. Mars is all rocks, sand and dust at extreme freezing temperatures. If you like the Antarctic it might seem like home. Not exactly what people 50 plus years old envisioned as a retirement community. The older ones spend all their time huddled around the heating vents supplied by nuclear reactors. One wrong move kills everyone and half of your colony will soon have dementia.
It's another government plan to save social security. Pay into it until you're 50, then move off the planet and lose your share. It almost worked...
FINALLY a reasonable way to save Social Security! Good thinking KC!
This ain't real. No such thing as a one-way mission...we even bring our dead back. Fools. Now on the other side of the fence, if the czar or commisar or commie what ever says your going...your going. Might be yet another way for the chinese to leap frog our technology. All the rest is speculation at best and misguided science at worst, both good for philosophy classes but little else. Anyways, digging in sure would take on a wholesome meaning in the context of survival. I bet the bookies are 2 to 1 odds on favorite for religious zealnuts to be the first martian donner party on their way to salvation (yea right). Baptise dem martians now!!! ALL OF EM!!!
Yeah, Sinonauts would have no problem colonizing Mars for make benefit Glorious People's Republic of China. They're heroes forever in China, and their families will be well taken care of, no need for comrade commissar to motivate.