How do you feel about people willing to give up everything for a 1 way trip to mars?

[Tex]

.. what?! There's no two ways about it?! I'm sorry I refuse to believe that. We're humans not monkeys. We should be prepared to let them die? You say that.. and then say I should enter the real world? Take a step back and look at what you just typed. I cannot believe I read that on this forum of all places.

You dont send people into space without a way home. Even IF the plan is to stay. You still provide contingencies should the worse happen.

Ah, but that's the thing. You know the Apollo program, right? We were prepared for them to die.

President Nixon had a speech pre-written that he would explain Neil Armstrong and "Buzz" Aldrin's deaths should they be stranded on the moon. Mike Collins himself said that he would return alone if need be, even though the opportunity to commit suicide was available to him.

You must understand that spaceflight is, arguably, the most dangerous field to work in. These men, their families, and especially the people who worked for them knew this and were prepared to accept the consequences.

We were prepared, we are prepared, for our astronauts to die. And that is the real world.

[KvickFlygarn87]

Well, that's up to them

[Motokid600]

Ah, but that's the thing. You know the Apollo program, right? We were prepared for them to die.

President Nixon had a speech pre-written that he would explain Neil Armstrong and "Buzz" Aldrin's deaths should they be stranded on the moon. Mike Collins himself said that he would return alone if need be, even though the opportunity to commit suicide was available to him.

You must understand that spaceflight is, arguably, the most dangerous field to work in. These men, their families, and especially the people who worked for them knew this and were prepared to accept the consequences.

We were prepared, we are prepared, for our astronauts to die. And that is the real world.

But we were also prepared to bring them back!

pxi

... Your losing me now. Show me where I said that it depends on the number of people. If I did.. then that's my mistake. No it doesn't matter. 1 person, 10, 20, 30, 40. Contingency plans reguardless.

[vger]

This is seriously beginning to look like a troll attack on a Yahoo comments page.

[Motokid600]

Lol no its not this is a fine little debate were having. A debate that's going to happen more and more as we get closer to an actual mission. No its trolling once we start swearing at eachother and that hasn't happened yet so we're doing good I'm just on a fine vacation, sippin drinks, fishing and debating space travel. I couldn't be happier No hard feelings over here fellas.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Motokid600

[vger]

Lol no its not this is a fine little debate were having. A debate that's going to happen more and more as we get closer to an actual mission. No its trolling once we start swearing at eachother and that hasn't happened yet so we're doing good I'm just on a fine vacation, sippin drinks, fishing and debating space travel. I couldn't be happier No hard feelings over here fellas.

Well I only said beginning to. I didn't say it was yet.

I'm just lost for what to argue at this point because you said it's OK if someone wants to go one way, but also said it shouldn't ever happen. *scratches head*

[Red Iron Crown]

Rather famously, Cortes burned his ships when his colonists arrived in the New World, to ensure they were properly motivated to make the colony work.

No reason a colony expedition to Mars couldn't be one way without a return option. This is the likeliest scenario, IMO. When you get down to it, if you are attempting to establish a colony on Mars, would you rather have a return ship you hope to never use or another 500 tons of supplies and tools that you definitely will?

[The Jedi Master]

All right. I seem to be the only person who agrees with Motokid here. Consider this:

1.On going to space despite tragedy: This is true, and I commend humanity for keeping on. Yet, we aren't talking five people. We're talking twenty, thirty, maybe more. It will have a much bigger impact on global opinion if they all die slowly and painfully or commit suicide.

2.On psychology and understanding that this is a one-way mission: Imagine being trapped in cramped quarters, possibly alone or stuck with someone you hate, constantly at work, for the rest of your life. And you can't go outside to get some fresh air, because to go outside you have to wear a cramped spacesuit, and if it breaks you die. In fact, without an escape plan, if anything breaks at all you die. If you ask me, it would actually help morale to have a Plan B.

3.On the Apollo program: As Motokid mentioned, we actually did plan to bring them back. This stuff with a speech and going home alone was last-resort.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? He has a point.

[pxi]

... Your losing me now. Show me where I said that it depends on the number of people. If I did.. then that's my mistake. No it doesn't matter. 1 person, 10, 20, 30, 40. Contingency plans reguardless.

I already have, or at least I thought I had. I'm not going to endlessly re-quote the same pieces of text, it is a waste of all of our collective time.

Anyway...

I will concede I would prefer a contingency plan, but I also recognise that to have such a contingency plan, you will need a craft capable of return, sufficient resources to survive the return, and for the planets to be somewhat aligned to actually make the return. All of this requires orders of magnitude more mass to be hauled to Mars on the outbound trip.

Given that we cannot anticipate when an emergency takes place, this diminishes the usefulness of a return vehicle significantly in my opinion. I would be far more likely to invest that outgoing mass in redundant systems that would allow me to spread my eggs amongst multiple avenues for survival.

[vger]

I will concede I would prefer a contingency plan, but I also recognise that to have such a contingency plan, you will need a craft capable of return, sufficient resources to survive the return, and for the planets to be somewhat aligned to actually make the return. All of this requires orders of magnitude more mass to be hauled to Mars on the outbound trip.

Yep. There's a 2-year span between each time Earth and Mars are closest to each other. To be capable of an 'emergency' return trip, you'd need a ship capable of getting you home even when Mars and Earth are in a superior conjunction. Nobody in their right mind would ever try such a thing, because the transfer time would be ridiculous. If you have a ship that can keep you alive long enough for that, you might as well forget about even trying to establish a Mars colony since you practically already have a self-sufficient space station with a big rocket attached to it.

To have a return ship that can take you at the worst possible time, you'd be increasing the weight of your payload 100 fold.

Edited April 28, 2014 by vger

[etopsirhc]

i go in an instant, if i could still get high speed internet connection ><. seriously i'd go insane w/o it.

[Brethern]

Why would I oppose it? Show me where I said I'm against going to Mars.. did I say that? Go to Mars without a contingency plan sure. Just know that if there's a terminal accident it's the end of your mission and your life.

@Brethren:

...All I'm saying is to provide a means for the people on the surface to get off the surface and back into orbit where... should they need too. Hop in a return module. Now there may be 20, 30 people after awhile on this colony. Every lander that brought a set of people has an ascent stage just like the LEM.

You talk of the comforts of home. And you honestly think that it'd be GOOD for mental health if these people were told there is no way back what so ever? That once your rocket leaves the pad that is the last time you will see the Earth and all these pleasantries again? And that's GOOD for mentality? You have it backwards..

So instead you launch with the intention and desire to live on Mars for the rest of your days. But you know should something occur that threatens to cut these ambitions short there is a contingency plan. A way home. This is BAD for your mental state? I refuse to believe that.

Again fellas I'm for Mars here. I'm the first one to raise my hand to go on a mission for the rest of my life. But I like living. So I wouldn't go unless there was a way to get back. But think about this.. your all so brave. "Oh pick me pick me I'll go. Oh.. But there's no way back.. well that's okay I'm going to MARS I don't care." Massive dust storm the likes of which we've never seen comes along and wipes out the life support for the colony. You got 30 minutes of air in your suit. So as you sit there asphyxiating I bet your gonna wish you had a way home at that point.

And what about space being at a premium? In order to have a way home a command module has to be in a stable orbit supplied with the food and water and O2 for a return trip that could that up to a year. I also dread to think what would happen to that module being un occupied until it's needed.

Unless we discover efficient fuels that allow craft to brute force their way to mars anything we send now is going to be a one way trip with little to no chance of return.

[pxi]

I've had a few other thoughts on the subject in the meantime.

For the sake of argument, assume we have sent a reasonable-size colony, say 200 individuals. Large enough that we have a varied gene pool in the event that no colonists arrive subsequently, and we have an 'escape plan'.

Assume that we have split these into four groups for descent to Mars, so we have four ascent modules, but only one transfer vehicle in Mars orbit.

Now, my question is, what constitutes an emergency? And at what point do you decide to execute that 'escape plan'?

Does it require that the whole colony agree? Or what if only 1/4 of the colony wants to GTFO? What if it is only a handful of individuals?

In the case of less than all of the colony leaving, what provisions do you make for those that stay behind?

You could send another transfer vehicle, but if that is en-route when the other is returning to Earth, then you are potentially dooming anyone you leave behind.

EDIT:

On a side-note on internet access on Mars: - Back in late-90's when we here in Eire-staat were mostly all on 33Kbps dial-up modems, one of my clients had access to 1Mbps via a satellite downlink. It was damn fast.

However: latency. We found that in practise, response times were so bad that it routinely took 10-15 seconds for a response.

Sending a request from Mars to Earth, you're going to be waiting quite a while for the response. You could do something similar to what ISP's do nowadays, cacheing requested data, and you could pre-emptively send data to mars of course, but if you love your Multiplayer Operation Modern-Shootface, you're in for a disappointment, unless there's a few people on Mars to play with.

Edited April 29, 2014 by pxi

[NASAFanboy]

I feel ok.

Why?

Because I am one of them.

No, I didn't sign up for Mars One since I was underage, and still am, but when 2030 rolls around I'll be in my young adult age, and thus, a possible candidate to go to Mars that isn't either too young but that isn't too old and elderly either. I am perfectly willing to leave everything I know behind because I am not loyal to family, not loyal to country, but loyal to humanity, yes, I love my family, but my visions and my dreams have no place on Earth, and they understand that and support me 100%.

I see the cause of space exploration as millions of times more important that my life, and thus, I am morally obliged/required to devote myself to the cause in every way possible in an almost religious sort of way.

You can think of it as a religon, almost. Worshipping space exploration as a source of enlightenment for humanity. It's the same reason why missionaries go to third world nations, it's the same reason for me. Because I feel morally obliged to help space exploration in the name of humanity, not for family or country

And that includes living in a big tin can while drinking recycled urine on Mars.

Because it's my obligation.

Edited April 29, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[iDan122]

I'd give up anything. Yes, I might sound crazy, but my goal in life isn't to be rich and famous and so on. My only dream is to leave Earth, forever perhaps.I have the heart of an adventurer, I can't sit in one place! Even the other planets of the Solar system are amusing. I am not planning to even start my own family, I don't want to be attached to anything, I am like a free bird that doesn't want to be put in a cage. Besides, if I do go to Mars one day, I won't have anyone to leave behind, making it mentally easier on me.

I know it is my destiny to go to Mars(or any other planet), I don't know how to explain it, but I can feel it.

Also, I was lucky enough to not be tall and to not have any kind of illnesses, mutations or anything that might prevent me from every going to space.

Well my primary goal is to become rich, and after that to give up everything, my rich life and everything else, to go to Mars.

If I succeed, I will be able to teach all 7 billion people an important lesson. It is that everyone shouldn't be selfish and only care about their welfare, but to think about humanity's future, without the kind of thought that 'let the future generations take care of it'.

I think the whole world should invest 1$ each to realize Mars One

Edited April 29, 2014 by iDan122

[Jas1126]

I say they're lucky. Very lucky. We get this one life and for them to live on Mars (Heck, just getting to travel to space) is something that I will always envy. Bitterly..... While I sip my coffee on bland ol' Earth. (Did I mention my bitter envy?) *cough*

[Godot]

I think their stay on Mars will be shortlived and their downfall will come from failing live support systems, negligience of duties or from intra group quarrels

As for the volunteersd ...I applaud their bravery/commitment I´m just a little bit worried about the biological contamination that likely will occur on Mars after the catastrophic failure

(the buildings slowly decaying in the strong martian winds, till their contents are released to the Mars atmosphere (including the corpses of the Marsonauts and any possible earth microbes withiun the buildings).

This might be a problem for future research into the biological history of Mars (and maybe still surviving martian microbes)

[Wahgineer]

What are the chances the astronauts would be stranded with no way back on a one way mission? I'm guessing it's about 100%. If they go to stay, they know they're going to stay. History has shown that some people are fine with that.

But in times past, those where people on EARTH, with access to food, water, lumber, oxygen, etc. If they wanted to get back home, all they needed was a navigator and (maybe) some people who knew a enough about boats to construct a vessel. With Mars one, there's no way of getting home, and if there's a failure, they're done. The funny thing would be is that, while in transit, two NASA vessels using a VASIMR make the trip in a third the time, one drops off a crew, waits, then returns. The second vessel remains in orbit, with a sign on it saying: "you owe us 23.4 billion and 17 years of effort for caring about you dumd***es."

[ravensoul6@hotmail.com]

1. Stop using 'we' like you speak for the whole of humankind. Humans are individuals and can make their own decisions about the risks they are willing to take.

2. If you think space travel will be safe anytime in the next two hundred years you are living in a fantasy.

3. If you think thats a reason not to go to space, then stay home. People who are not afraid to die will forge ahead and have themselves immortalized.

4. NASA won't be doing it. Because the NASA we have now is not the NASA of the 1960's. The NASA we have now is incompetent, bureaucratic, slow, inefficient, and costs hundreds of times more than the value it provides.

5. Private companies can profit off of space exploration, the future is building fuel depots and mining operations around our system. Even if the profits are marginal and the risk is high, people will do it just for the sake of adventure.

[razark]

But in times past, those where people on EARTH, with access to food, water, lumber, oxygen, etc. If they wanted to get back home, all they needed was a navigator and (maybe) some people who knew a enough about boats to construct a vessel.

I'm sure Robert Scott will rejoice at the news when he gets back.

He's only 102 years late checking in.

[vger]

If they wanted to get back home, all they needed was a navigator and (maybe) some people who knew a enough about boats to construct a vessel.

Dude... you could spend your entire life trying to count the number of ships that have been lost at sea.

[Brethern]

1. Stop using 'we' like you speak for the whole of humankind. Humans are individuals and can make their own decisions about the risks they are willing to take.

2. If you think space travel will be safe anytime in the next two hundred years you are living in a fantasy.

3. If you think thats a reason not to go to space, then stay home. People who are not afraid to die will forge ahead and have themselves immortalized.

4. NASA won't be doing it. Because the NASA we have now is not the NASA of the 1960's. The NASA we have now is incompetent, bureaucratic, slow, inefficient, and costs hundreds of times more than the value it provides.

5. Private companies can profit off of space exploration, the future is building fuel depots and mining operations around our system. Even if the profits are marginal and the risk is high, people will do it just for the sake of adventure.

So I guess apollo 1 and 13 were accidents that couldn't have been avoided except for taking the time to design better equipment.

[ravensoul6@hotmail.com]

So I guess apollo 1 and 13 were accidents that couldn't have been avoided except for taking the time to design better equipment.

Even with vastly improved equipment things could have still gone wrong. Iterative design works by improving on tested equipment, and the best test of equipment is to go and use it in the field. In that case, it meant going to space with it.

We have barely stepped into the fringes of space. Deep space travel is significantly more dangerous, and who is to say we even know what a significant percentage of those dangers are?

Even a micro meteor the size of a grain of sand could destroy the ISS if it hit one of the habitation modules. Solar flares out in deep space are significantly more dangerous than when we are tucked inside Earth's magnetosphere...and that's not to speak of other sources of radiation which are constantly streaming through our system from the great unknown.

The list of dangers in space is longer and more exotic than any seafaring adventure in centuries past. Never mind the imperfections of our equipment.

[Brethern]

Even with vastly improved equipment things could have still gone wrong. Iterative design works by improving on tested equipment, and the best test of equipment is to go and use it in the field. In that case, it meant going to space with it.

We have barely stepped into the fringes of space. Deep space travel is significantly more dangerous, and who is to say we even know what a significant percentage of those dangers are?

Even a micro meteor the size of a grain of sand could destroy the ISS if it hit one of the habitation modules. Solar flares out in deep space are significantly more dangerous than when we are tucked inside Earth's magnetosphere...and that's not to speak of other sources of radiation which are constantly streaming through our system from the great unknown.

The list of dangers in space is longer and more exotic than any seafaring adventure in centuries past. Never mind the imperfections of our equipment.

I can accept that space travel is dangerous and things can go wrong.

However I can't accept that anyone who had the ability to build something as powerful as the saturn V could have screwed up so bad when it comes to what caused the accidents of 1 and 13.

By this point they knew the dangers of working with pure oxygen. They used it for diving during WW2 and it was part of the fuel for the damn thing, not to mention some genus though that having an inward swinging hatch was a good idea.

Then there's the apollo 13 issue. Who in their right mind designs a gauge that only reads to a certain temperature?

The only difference between todays NASA and NASA then is that back then they had money. Their intelligence level is the same.

[Red Iron Crown]

Hindsight, hindsight. The causes of accidents are almost always obvious after the fact.