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:
I'm too old now, but 20yrs ago, I would have jumped at the chance.
It seems to me that the three biggest threats to a Mars colonist would be:
-- Radiation. One day in outer space yields as much radiation exposure to six months of life on Earth. While Mars gets somewhat less radiation than outer space, the planet's atmosphere and magnetic field are far less dense than Earth's and thus will provide far less protection against solar and cosmic radiation.
-- Gravity. There's no way around the fact that the reduced gravity will have a cumulative effect on one's health. While it is not as damaging as weightlessness, the future colonists would have to take special precautions to avoid bone loss and muscle loss.
-- Lack of a functioning ecology: Because all food would have to be grown in domes, a mechanical failure would essentially spell the doom for the colonists. The Mars soil is sterile, the atmosphere is about 1% as dense as on Earth, and the air is poisonous. So food could not be grown outside of pressurized domes.
With all that said, I hope colonization does happen someday. A species that fails to adapt and grow will usually become extinct.
Great points, Butterfly.
Radiation is a big but at least a known problem, so some kind of shielding on the trip there has to be in place to prevent permanent and irreversible damage before they even get there. Then structures on Mars will have to shield as much radiation as possible. Damage to cells and DNA definitely has to be limited if the colony is going to thrive and reproduce.
Gravity may not be as big a problem on the surface since they aren't coming back and the reduced bone and muscle mass may be fine in that lower gravity. The bigger problem is to prevent as much bone and muscle mass loss in the long micro gravity trip to get there.
Having some amount of emergency food stores in the event of a breakdown is a given. It's also no doubt that what we think of as food will be radically different. Animal protein is too wasteful and expensive to produce in that environment, so plant proteins would have to be the main source. The lack of natural sunlight similar to earth's through our atmosphere may require special hybrids that can survive under the new conditions. Artificial light is an option, but its not as sustainable as crops that can grow in the available conditions. And since water will be scarce and extremely valuable, drought tolerant plants would be the way to go. I think a lot of unconventional food sources like plankton, krill, algae, mold, and fungus could be worth considering. And, human waste has to have a role as the building blocks for fertilizer, harvested for unused nutrients, and even as a fiber source.
It amazes me that the of the first settlers to America, many of the men were "gentlemen", meaning that they had no trade skills, just some wealth and a good family name. Then they were forced to learn trades like house & barn building, farming, and mining when they reached the Americas. This was a main reason why many of the men did not survive. The settlers goingto Mars need to be of a hearty stock, with a good head on their shoulders. Having them trained in science & technology is good, but a trainable mind is better. You will need men and women with strong immune systems, strong bones, and clear heads. They will need to be able to adapt to situations, and improvise whenever necessary. They should go through the survival training that the Army Rangers must endure, to learn how to use an item in unorthodox ways to survive. It sounds like it could work out great. When people put their minds together, anything is possible.
Hmmm... Over 40, no social life, reclusive types, no family or very limited to no contact with them, married to their job, and the chance to be in a video game instead of just playing one...
I think several people I know from work would be fine with going to Mars. The problem definitely won't be finding enough geeks. The real problem will be in finding enough of the common sense survivor types who can actually do the physical work required and improvise outside of the box to hold things together with duck tape and bailing wire if necessary instead of just skilled players and thinkers. It still shouldn't be a problem getting enough people considering how big the resource pool is.
I like your thinking Mike. It's true, creative, thinking out of the box people willing to actually do something, not just think and talk about it, would be essential.
I'm 67 years old and ready to go. Where do I sign up?
I'm just disappointed that I'll be to old by the time it happens, I would sign up tomorrow. I read about the first settlers who colonised Australia, for them it must have been like living on another planet with no chance of going home.
Mars would be an even bigger challenge, with even more limited resources and an unbelievably harsh environment. But you would have a whole new world to explore, it would be an adventure of a hundred lifetimes and the ultimate getaway. And you would not be alone, there will be families and towns just like the old west.
And I like the idea of being able to call myself a Martian.
While we dwell on the supplies that might be needed, I want to remind us all of the baggage that each colonist shall bring regardless or his education. The rage, avarice and egocentricisim that make us all human shall be there as well. Thus while Mars might have no currency, it still has the same things of value we have here on Earth. Things like foods and beverages, property, entertainment, labor avoidance, and sexual cooperation will still be traded, hoarded and stolen.
You see, they will be made up of us, so they shall probably face the same questions we have. They will grow their world and overpopulate it. They will break into social strata and exploit each other. They will reinvent war, and rediscover greed. They will enslave the weak and engage in rape and torture. They shall lie and steal, and create imaginary Gods to justify their actions. They will drag their new world to the same place we have dragged this one, and then they will look to flee from the chaos created with their own hands, to once again seek new worlds to decimate.
Sounds like one hell of a party, so sign me up! We’re doomed anyway, so let’s get it done!
Hmmm, sounds like a good book. Wanna co-author one with me?
How cool would that be!
We could write a constitution for the new world, and then start trying to reinterpret our own original intent in creating it.
We could grant the citizen a list of rights, and then arbitrarily impinge on them!
We could create a world where ones influence is determined by the purity of your genetic identity as measured against a fool’s template.
We could enflame inter planetary hatred and breed a sense of contempt and paranoia that could breach worlds!
We could cradle thousands of forms of sentient life in our new world, and then slowly and inexorably kill them each off in the name of sport and progress!
We could be GODS!
This is definitely in the "dystopian style" of thought. One major tenant of most good dystopian fables is making sex undesirable for the individual. (my favorite form of this can be found in 1984).
I think there is one main issue that would ever prevent this from happening. Food. What are we going to do, send rockets of rations weekly, or monthly? It is not like settlement of the Americas, where at the time, food sources were abundant. All you had to do was take a short walk with your musket and shoot some game. Dig some roots, pick some berries, and you had a decent nourishing meal. On Mars...you have rocks. We cant even get ourselves, as a species, to feed ourselves properly here, or to engineer a viable self sustaining greenhouse that could feed 100 people or more. That takes water, a resource that would be scarce on a martian world.
They don't want 50 year olds now, because the trip would be strenuous, they want 20/30 yr olds. So lets say they split hairs, and send someone at 40, willing to spend a shortened life on a world with ... nothing but hard work, 24/7, no entertainment that they are used to, no family, no friends... What is a shortened life at 40, 20/25 years? That is a lot of feeding, watering, etc, and until we teraform (not sure if this is the right word in this context) the martian atmosphere, it isnt happening. It is all pipe dreams, and fantasy. Would it be awesome? Hell yes. Will it happen in the next 200 years? Hell no.
Until you send the people up, no one will be terraforming. Plants would actually be essential to the terraforming process. The Martian atmosphere is mostly CO2. What do plants process into Oxygen? CO2. The soil has plenty of iron. Probably many other minerals necessary for plants to grow. Water has been found at the poles, and under the surface. While water would have to be conserved as much as possible, there are plenty ways to enclose a dome and grow plants in a greenhouse with the existing water. Hardy plants that could survive in the open could be introduced to the Martian environment as well, possibly tundra grasses or such.
With an air pressure less than at the top of Mt. Everest, not even the hardiest known plants could survive in the open on Mars. In fact, for most of Mars, the air pressure is so low that liquid water cannot exist, in the open it would flash into water vapor. Sorry, but an enclosed building would be a necessity.
Another problem would be the lower light intensity on Mars, insufficient for all but the most shade tolerant earth plants. Most food crop plants would need additional light, meaning they'd need to take a nuclear power plant along to power those lights, with more weight and radiation to worry about.
Something tells me this isn't going to go beyond the "talking about it" stage.
I am 50. I am reasonably successful in my profession. I am highly trained, experienced and make a good living. I have two beautiful children whom I adore and have raised to be good people. My ex-wife and I are friends and I am seeing a wonderful woman. It sounds like I should be happy doesn't it. Well I am but I look in the mirror sometimes and wonder what I have REALLY accomplished in my life. What mark have I really made that benefits the lives of those around me?
I would go. Even knowing that at best my life would be shortened and at worst I might die on the way. It doesn't matter because this would be worthwhile. An opportunity to cut the path for the future of mankind on another planet. THAT is a legacy worth living for and one certainly worth dying for!
Hartily agree.
Just do it already. I am so tired of the space program being pushed backwards further and further. When JFK said he'd put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, they did it. They didn't whine and complain about the cost to life and pockets of the country. The space program is responsible for so much science and innovation over the last 50 years, by neglecting it we are neglecting our future. For anyone who thinks the space program is a waste of resources, I think they are sadly misguided with the technology pushing it caused. Lets go to the moon, lets go to mars, lets do it in 10 years. There is no reason to wait, we're already in debt, and maybe, just maybe, it will lead to something really worth doing............and just a brief note on the loss of life caused by the space program. These men and women know the risks, yes it is sad when they die, but they die for something, maybe something the majority of us will never know, a death in pursuit of a greater dream, and future of mankind.
I have a degree in chemistry and nursing. I have experience in both, and am 28. I would be willing to take this trip. I would do this for no other reason then to be part of a frontier spirit which tests the strength of our species and resolve. I would be willing to pay a small price for the opportunity as well. Just my thoughts. Get this program ready by time I am in my forties and I will be the first to sign up.
Glad to hear it! We'll need many like you. The need for trained medical personnel will be great in any colonization process. It wouldn't surprise me if the average space-faring citizen of the future has more training than today's well-educated physicians.
At least on Mars we wouldn't have to listen to Al Gore rant about climate change.
I think we are about half/crazy thinking we could do that inside 30 yrs, maybe in a few thousand would be more reasonable. To start with there is not enough resources here on earth to accomplish this. Remember we would have to vote on it, no matter how good it may sound, the party not in power would vote "NO". End of dream, now wake up.
Sure, sign me up. Actually this is the perfect time to recruit candidates. If the mission will not take place until around 2035, start picking candidates now and begin to prep them for the jorney. 20 years is more than enough time to prepare. I am 37 years old, so in 20 years I will be retired, done with raising my children, and ready for a new adventure.
In fact, train a husband and wife, so they can grow old together on Mars. No need for policing their behavior because most husbands and wives are already skilled at arguing and conflict resolution:-)
Many seem to fail to see that advantages of living at a reduce gravity. That 40 year old will feel like a 20 something and they also should have a little wisdom to go with their age, 20 somethings do things on the dangerous side and do not think about the bigger picture. Also consider we are only talking about a few first waves not the total long term population. Not really a bad and these first few may be training for years before leaving.
Why don't you guys send "snooki" and all of those other brain dead, worthless, bozos to a colony on Mars and see what a real reality tv show can be like. Go ahead and send all of the criminals up there too like someone mentioned earlier. It's what happened in Australia. I don't think there are large predators on Mars and the really f'd up criminals would be a good replacement for that. They could then hunt and kill all of the spoiled, entitled and stupid reality tv stars and we could watch from home while eating popcorn. Now THAT would be a reality tv show that I could enjoy. Currently reality tv is a fine example of what is wrong with this country.
"The main impediment is the narrow vision and the culture of political caution that now pervades the space programs of most nations." I have never heard it put so succinctly before, but that statement is spot on.
I would go. I would spend all my money on going.
In the article it isn't really made clear what would happen, it says "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."
One thing I would NOT do is pay $10,000 dollars or more to be entered into a lottery. If I go I will spend every last dime on it, but I'm not paying through the nose just to be entered into a lottery. And that says a lot because anyone who has read a comment from me knows how badly I want to go into space.
I'd pay $100 maybe even $1,000 to be in that lottery, but $10,000? too rich for my blood. Even if I were rich that would still be too rich for my blood. I realize this thing needs to be funded, but I don't think it's right to have space loving people pay through the nose and not be able to go. That's my two cents.
All the money you've made in your lifetime would not be enough to pay the ticket price. That's why they're looking for a huge pool of millions donors to pitch in and fund the billions needed for a few to go.
As for me, I wouldn't pay $1 because (1) I think a manned Mars mission is an extravagant money pit, and (2) I'm really suspicious that they don't really want to go to Mars, they'll just take the money and abscond to some tax haven somewhere.
I've read as many comments from you as I possibly could, some have good science behind them, but many are just downright negative. I also think there are scum bags who would abscond with folks' money like you describe. I also fear that if done incorrectly the missions to Mars could end up being a money pit. But does that mean we have to just not go, or worse yet give up on the manned space programs?? No, we manage things better. We get honest people and put them in charge, and yes they do exist. You won't put any money in their pockets for this kind of thing and frankly neither would I. I think in order for something like this to work there would have to an amount of production happening that is unprecedented. For the people who don't get chosen in a lottery we'd have to see often the progress being made. The things you mention are good valid opinions but you're just so negative.
So, I ask you what would you do differently?
No one in their right mind would first build a long term habitable base on Mars, without first experimenting on our moon. Remoteness of Mars adds significant challenge to the mission and elevates the cost.
Christopher Columbus was a seasoned explorer before taking voyage to the new world. Imagine it was his first endeavor, without prior knowledge of exploration, it would of been impossible for him to survive the long journey.
We can dream and theorize all we want, but first we we have to solve the most pending challenge: moving payload from Earth into space at an affordable cost. Until then, the sky is the limit.
One big difference between Columbus and anyone going to Mars, the person going to Mas cannot throw a line out the ship and fish, a second is that rain water can not be collected for drinking and third, Columbers didn't need to take air or air-scrubbing equipment.
We suvived tropical storms exploring the oceans, not without some costs, we will survive the solar storms of space, again with some cost.
let's see the distance to the moon is about 180,000 miles, it took about 9 years to get there and a lot of money. Now you want to go to Mars?? 35 million at it's closest (which will be about 59,000 years from now) and about as much as 54 million miles from earth, about 300 times more distance. So let's wait for another 59K yrs, I think by then we will be more prepared. Maybe all nations will be at peace, but only if we can do something with our religions, as how can we be at peace if wars are going on (by the way all religions are the reason for wars, we all know that)... It's a never ending battle, wars that is. Let's take care of our planet first, so everyone can have a real life, let's stop fighting amongst ourselves, h.... we can't even be at peace in our own neighborhood. Get rid of all atomic bombs, our nation should be ashamed using it to win the war....how many civilians were killed, how many with genetic problems? The U.S. needs to wake up before it's too late.....am I the only one who thinks this....outlaw wars!!!!! retired army, Korea/Nam
I would like to volunteer some other people to go, and I think it would improve mankind here on the blue planet. It would be cheap - a few free drinks in a bar, maybe a little choke-hold just to the point of passing out, and load these volunteers aboard. I have an old colleague that I have decided should go. She could boss her companion around without dissent, and be the tyranical ruler of the world she always wanted to be. Hopefully, breeding will not take place in her case, as we do not want to create a world of monsters. Can I submit her name and GPS coordinates? She will not be missed, I promise.
The probability of one-way commitments to a Mars colony effort is very high. There will be no shortage of adventurers willing to take on the risks and challenges. Long term efforts are essential in establishing an outpost, then a colony, and in time a civilization. The committment is two-way, however, because the initial engineering and support systems will have to be supplied from Earth (or from The Moon if our nearest rock is colonized first, which is likely) And that will no doubt continue for 100 years or more until the colony buiilds sufficient infrastructures to sustain itself with the basics of air, heat, light, water and food. Will vegetables grow on The Moon and Mars? What about common farm animals? Can they adapt? A huge industry awaits humanity all along the Hi-frontier. The list of 'help wanted' ads for construction workers, hvac mechanics, reactor techs, truck drivers, crane operators, etc and etc, will fill the future's Eclassified listings!The most essential ingredient in the potential mix is: What is the return on the investment? Pure scientific data from an outpost will not produce a monetary return. Somewhere along the line there must be payback and a profit, otherwise the effort will only be an intolerable drain on the Earthly GDP. Economics will continue to play a key role in the determinant. Mars, like The Moon, is entirely mineral and we know little of what is available to extract as a tradeable commodity usefull and valuable in All the Ports of Earth. It remains entirely probable that one-way teams of colonists will be in the forefront of emmigration beyond the Earth and into the greater expanse of our solar system.
I fully agree with your reasoning on "Return on investment".
Therefore again, moving payload into space at a reasonable price will reduce the cost and make return on investment feasible.
That is why Virgin SpaceShipOne is a reality. And more will follow, if we can move cargo up at lower cost. Don't we all agree that without this first step, space is far fetched reality?
Well, so far the only return on manned space flight have been the entertainment value of watching astronauts cavorting in zero gee and bounding on the moon, and a few souvenir rocks. Not nearly enough for the billions spent. A "one way Mars mission" would be even worse, a much higher price without even the souvenir rocks to look at.
All the "spinoffs" frequently quoted came from basic research, not the spaceflights themselves, we could have obtained the same benefits for a fraction of the cost had we funded the research and forgot about the space flights.
Nope, manned space flight won't make economic sense until the cost of going into space is dramatically reduced. "SpaceShipOne" doesn't cut costs enough, and doesn't even achieve low orbit. We need a major breakthrough to do that, and that appears rather remote at this time.
Eventually we will have to go to Mars and terraform it. But we will only be able to do it with the entire world participating in it. However, we can't even agree on how to take care of our own planet so I doubt we will agree or come together to colonize Mars. 'We are not there yet."
I'll go. In twenty years I'll be a little over 70. That could give me a good ten years or so on Mars, and maybe better years than I'd get on Earth: Lower gravity, no need for Social Security, great contribution to mankind, etc.
It all sounds great for the short term before radiation sickness and the confines of your environment curtail your enjoyment of exploration. At that point it becomes hell on Mars.
Imagine arriving on Mars and finding everyone dead. Your crew has to dispose of the radiation stricken bodies before you can do anything else, knowing that in a short while that will be you. Welcome to Mars!
Can't we do better than that? Why send people into a no-win scenario to save a few bucks? We need to develop economical technologies to protect a community from radiation before we send people there. Imagine how much faster the colony could grow if everyone didn't have such a short life expectancy.
Indeed, much can and will be done to protect people from radiation, but it is always going to be a big concern. even when we develop good technoligies to protect us we will still need reliable and accurate monitors of all our settlements to let everyone know when radiation is above "acceptable levels". Building underground and wearing radiation suits is one thing. but we need to build entire habitats with more than adequate shielding. It seems to me that radiation often gets overlooked (or maybe it's just not often talked about with laymen like me) but it's very obviously a MAJOR problem for space exploration. Much more can be done, and much more will inevitably be done to provide that barrier of safety.
I also feel that we should send younger folks and older folks alike. I disagree with the assessment that people "beyond their reproductive cycle" should be the ones to make the one-time journey. I think a younger man may have more drive to survive than an old guy. but that's just me (and FYI I did just turn 29, so I am kind of biased.)
so many things need to be done for the stepping stones to be placed in order for mankind to settle on Mars. I think for any mission to be a success we will need a space port in a high orbit around Earth (to be permanently inhabited), a space port in orbit around the Moon (this could have robotic crew and/or intermittent human crew), and permanent manned outpost on the Moon's surface (designed to grow over the years into a bustling space port and permanent habitat on the lunar surface) and there will also need to be some kind of base in orbit around Mars (either on one of the moons or a space station), also the lagrange points wouldn't be a bad place to set up a space port.
Financial return is going to be the main driving force for all this. Some have mentioned Columbus, well the spice trade was big at that time, we'll need to develop heavy transports for all the material that will undoubtedly need to be transported to and from the surface of all these place. We need advanced systems to get to and from space. I'm all for heavy lift rockets and rockets of all types, but we need to really encourage things like the space elevator and other systems to get from terra to space (in many different gravity wells).
There is a lot of money to be made in space. We could theoretically put every person on Earth to work in the endeavor to push outward into the solar system and beyond. I know I'm not alone in this thinking. It can work!
Agree that a spaceport in orbit is almost essential, or at least would make these things infinitely easier. We could get to Mars by by-passing the Moon, and thus get to Mars quicker. However, building a base on the Moon would work out a lot of the engineering and logistics issues closer to home before moving beyond.
The Lagrange points would be great places for stations, great for observatories, etc.
Let's face it, though. Mars and the Moon are really the only bodies that are available to us, at least where we are now technologically. Jupiter moons and beyond are too cold to really be habitable. Mercury and Venus, not likely. Orbital stations at best with outer planets or inner planets. If we want to be on the ground, it's Luna or Mars.
Tony, I agree. The radiation thing becomes an even bigger problem when traveling near the gas giants. so, even though the science would be better off out there I feel the gas giant moons are going to need to be explored by robots until we have fool proof radiation shielding.