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:
The Earth is 5 Billion years old. We live at best 90 years, there are 7.5 Billion humans living on this planet. In the big scheme of things, my life, my existence is NOT original, is NOT special, is NOT of any consequence to our species and our greater humanity.
So - I'm going to die anyway, one way or another. My life will not be remembered AT ALL 1000 years from now. But a small group of colonist on mars sacrificing themselves for the expansion of our race off this planet. Imagine TEN THOUSAND years from now it will still be noted and known by all living humans (perhaps trillions at that point) that those first settlers made it all possible.
They will be legends. Beats shopping at Walmart until I grow old and die.
Sign me up.
i think we would be smart to send politicians first.
What's the point? It's a bit like climbing Everest. Nothing to gain but to say you did it.
I'm more in favor of getting humanity to reduce its numbers by attrition. We already have too many people fighting over resources that will run out and what's coming down the pike is the end of a beautiful planet for humanity to enjoy. We have plenty to do and spend our treasure on so this planet remains habitable.
If we do that the species will survive and eventually figure out how to travel in space without it taking years or decades to get there. Fuel rocketry is about like the first horseless carriage. Technology is in its early stages and so much more is yet to come.
Going to Mars sounds awfully romantic but hardly worth the effort.
I honestly can't imagine someone wanting to live the rest of their life there, after they've been there a while. Oh, it might sound like a fun adventure but once you get there....get set up and get used to the place...don't tell me you wouldn't miss your loved ones (be homesick), miss fresh air, miss seeing a blue sky, miss seeing the color green...and many other things. I understand that the human race must explore and look beyond our own planet, but it's hard to imagine anyone having a strong enough mental framework to live the rest of their life on a hostle planet. I think over time you would have chaos. I'm all for exploring Mars, seeing what's over there, seeing what the human race can achieve...but a return trip back to earth would need to happen, regardless of the cost.
Send all of congress on that first trip. The farther they're from the US the better.
I'm 50 years old, am a physician, and grew up on a family farm. I have a degree in Agronomy from my premed days so I think I would be pretty uniquely qualified to fulfill more than one role on such an expedition. Sign me up.
NO question you could find people past 50 who would do this. The world is a big place, and finding people to live out there lives for a dream would not be hard. Passing the psych tests would narrow the group considerably, but is completely doable
Hmmmm....sex in 33% of Earth gravity...where do I sign up?!?
I've always hoped I would see people on Mars before I croak. At 63 my chances are not to good. As the people who keep up with this know, it's a monumental task!!! Our space program seems to be going in slow motion. It's hard to believe we didn't have an immediate succesor to the space shuttles ready to go. The only way the human race will survive is by colonization of other planets.
delete
52 and ready to go today. Been wanting to go for years. But I do feel that if we are going to do this, we should be starting on the Moon. Perfect the techniques needed, make sure the robots function correctly, then send out Round 2 to Mars. We accomplish the same thing, and now we have two off-Earth locations. I love the spirit of everyone that has commented on this article / blog. Keep up the good work, Alan!
I havent heard anything mentioned about possible terriforming by sending moss or algae to mars, the atmosphere is mainly CO2 anyhow and seems like plants should thrive on it if they find even small amounts of moisture.
also would be easier to spot a possible habitable area as the plants would only grow were moisture was available.
Beam me up Scottie. Hey, maybe there will finally be a planet in the solar system with intelligent life.
The question is NOT one of getting man to Mars. It's one of sustainaing a human presence. The logic of post life producing years, as a suitable age for using older subjects, is obvious, but its logic cuts both ways, in its risk averse tactic(s); where is the STRATEGY? What is missing is the rational for extra terrestal life? By this is meant the spiritual sustainability, of that life, as a function of service to G-d and mankind. Nothing, I've heard thus far, addresses this existential issue. Tky, Yehoshua Ya'acov
I am 60 years old and in pretty good health for a man my age. I would go in a heartbeat. I don't mean to derail this discussion, but I am so fed up with the petty bickering, intolerance and hatred of this self-destructive planet it would be a great relief to get away and do something important with the remainder of my life. I hate to break it to you, but we're all going to die anyway. I've had a good life and it would be a joy to do something really meaningful with the years remaining to me.
Please, sign me up, I'm two years from retirement. What a wonderful second career. My wife can have the house, my pension and all the money in the 401K as well as any salary they decide to pay us "space pioneers". That should take care of her for the rest of her life.
I would miss her. We've been together 32 years. But it's the Code of the West, "A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do."
Boots & Saddles boys, west-ward, un..I mean Mars-ward Ho! Yeeeehaw. (I"m not kidding, count me in)
I like the idea. Take a miserable pile of rocks in the middle of nowhere, and thru our insight and dedication, convert this wasteland into a flourishing society.
Seems like the same theory we have in Afghanistan!
If the radiation is so bad....Why do we want to colonize there? Am I missing something??
Mars, The 51st State. Florida may be the sunshine state, but we're the radiation state! Top that Florida!!!
The whole Mars concept is a joke. It's a big rock that gets pelted by smaller rocks all the time and is not at all suited for human life. At least the explorers here could hunt for food. I can't believe that we pay $1 to explore that worthless planet any more than we already have.
Can I still facebook from there? Imagine those posts?? "Its cold and there is no air to breath and I'm dying!!!! Get me outta here!"
This is so ridiculous. Surviving, not living, on Mars has no benefit to anyone. Using the terms "Settlers" and "Frontier" is ignorant.
Of course, we would need to provide them all with an honorable death in the event something went wrong, so logic would dictate we give them each a suicide pill.
Regrettably, history teaches us that one of them would then put his suicide pill in one of his fellow settlers Gatorade so he could have his bunk, or his Martian Lasagna, or even the company of his Robo Booty!
I am all for colonizing other planets, as long as we send all of nature’s bounty, with the sole exception of our miserable selves. We are well on our way to destroying this world, yet we still are arrogant enough to believe we should lay claim to another!
Let us die here.
I'm 28 right now so according to this timetable I should be about the desired age and I would absolutely volunteer. However I have no wife or children right now so it might be hard to say the same thing if and when I start a family. I understand the dangers and the shortened life span but this is a chance to do something that will benefit the entire human race. It would be by far the most important moment in human history. It has to happen eventually to avoid our species being wiped out. The sooner we start the better.
This would be a great project - for the 22nd Century. We're going to be too busy for the rest of the 21st Century repairing everything we've screwed up to be sending colonists to Mars.
Make people pay to go? "For $10,000 to $1,000,000 you too can die an untimely death in outer-space!" I think this falls into the realm of volunteerwork, or perhaps there should be some compensation to the astronauts families for the sacrifice of self for science. Perhaps sending younger people with a better plan for radiation protection, with the intent of building base camp and returning eventually after a stable and growing colony has been established. This of course would not be without its challenges, re-adapting to Earth's gravity could be pretty wicked . . .
Ben Rich of northrup grumin once said ," we now have the ability to take ET home". Makes you wonder about all of what NASA is doing is smoke and mirrows.
It's not clear that we even know how to take a one-way trip to Mars. No heavy payload has ever been landed there. The Martian atmosphere is so thin that aerobraking maay not work for anything much more massive than a rover.