One-Way Trip to Mars

I agree, there will be many willing to go on a one way trip, but how many of us would be willing to send someone knowing that it is a death sentence?

I would think that someone in the early stages of a terminal illness would be happy to volunteer actually–isn’t it the dream of every person to be able to do something that could benefit all mankind?
Let my kids get grown up and I’d volunteer in a minute w/no regrets.

There is a difference between planning to make it back and not being able to do so (like Lindbergh, who had many predecessors who didn’t survive) and knowing you won’t come back. Certainly there would be people willing to go, for the anticipated adulation if nothing else, and the Middle East is full of them blowing themselves up every day in the name of a cause. But people would want to remember a manned trip that was successful from launch to splashdown on Earth.

NASA should be scrapped from government funding and supported solely by private investors.

First, we would have to pass progressive legislation supportive of humane and swift assisted suicides, (besides enlisting for a HUMVEE mission.)

I mean really…you want to use the premise of a suicide mission to mars….to..umm..unify the world.

I nominate George W. Bush!

Send a few male and female kids out of college to colonize. Keep sending replenishment supplies. How cool to have the first baby on the martian surface.
Beam me Up!!

Um…I see his point but I don’t think listening to an astronaut describe the beauty of the Martian surface right before he unlatched his helmet and died of exposure would make ANYONE feel good.

A friend of mine, a Ph.D. in Geology, had this idea 5 years ago, and told me that when he asked his unmarried colleagues if they’d sign up, about 1/3 of them said that would be fine with them. Being the first person on Mars was worth it, they said.
I don’t doubt that NASA could find someone to do this.

So what is this single human on mars going to do? MUCH cheaper and more practical to use robots. You can have them working there for years. It wouldn’t be practical to send a human and all the life support equipment and supplies that would be required to achieve the same results. We need to focus on more beneficial goals like increasing our launch efficiency. Once we can pull stuff out of earth’s gravity well for a more reasonable price, a trip to Mars will be practical. I think there should be more focus on building a space elevator. Supposedly, we already know how to make material strong enough for the cables. Something like this will require a lot of international negotiation. IE where to locate the base, construction of materials. Launch of facilities into orbit, etc… Treaties to protect it, etc… Once it’s in place, colonizing the moon, building space stations, or going to mars will be a cinch.

Some of these responses are ridiculous. Do you realize how many people died trying to make the first powered flight? The Wright brothers weren’t the first people who tried to fly, nor were they the last. Even after they were successful plenty of people got themselves killed trying to repeat what they did.
Also the whole ‘wait for the technology to come’ argument is completely illogical. Technology is not some disembodied force that propels itself along. The only way to advance the state of technology (remember, technology is applied science) is to actually go and do it, to actually go an apply it.
You have to actually read the original article. It isn’t a death mission at all. The idea is that you’d continue to send a stream of astronauts, each one carrying a larger payload faster as each successful mission lead to advances in the next. Eventually you’ll start sending more people, building up a colony and infrastructure, and eventually you’ll be able to make return trips. Yes, the first people that get there likely will die there, but they won’t necessarily die tragically or alone.
We’re all going to die someday. The only difference is when and how.

Sure…We could pipe David Bowie (“Space Oddity”) into the spaceship as the volunteer astronaut journeys toward Mars. You know…the song that starts with, “Ground Control to Major Tom…”

Could they make it for two so bush and cheney could go together…. ?

Such limited thinking didn’t get us to the Moon and back! We should be figuring out how to do the whole mission right. I’m certain people thought the same thing when first considering sending someone to the moon!
Why not send the means to get off Mars and back to earth on a separate mission, either before or after you send a man (or woman). On trips to the moon the main ship remained in orbit while another ship landed and returned the astronauts.
I’m sure if you ask around you will find plenty of people who can come up with ideas that will work!

not a good analogy at all Mist.
for 1 thing , the quest for man to fly had benefits that were immediate for humanity in general , eg ; once we actually had airplanes that were somewhat reliable (which were themselves foreseeable by most engineers and scientists of the early 20th century) the first thing we did was employ them for useful purposes such as carrying the mail/medicine ,transport over otherwise non negotiable terrain ,aerial cartography ,etc.
and whats the immediate usefulness of a man on mars? uniting the planet? Haw! unlike early airplanes and aviation technology , todays engineers and scientists cant even foresee or imagine the basic technical advances needed to make the basics of a mission to mars (and back) a plausible effort in the first place,not now or even in the near future ,according to them anyway .
so it can be done…thats never a particularly good reason to do anything . i dont see humanity gaining alot from one man (or even a colony) on mars. at least not anything nearly like the ability to fly has given mankind.
robotics and such can largely do the same things as humans ,much more efficiently ,they are ethically easy to replace and without worry in many other respects as well ,compared to the human counterpart that is.

SCREW MARS… if this is going to be a one way mission… lets send them into the sun… way cooler and think about how many people would watch and they could load the ship with fireworks and time it for 4th of july and we could all jump up and down waving little american flags!

Maybe if we called it “homesteading” instead of a one way death mission it would stand a better chance of happening. Maybe even send along a tent and some light weight furniture. lol.

I thought there would be many more people who would be very interested to participate even though it is a one-way mission. My husband and I talk about this all the time and would both go in a heartbeat. We dream about going into space and could care less if we ever come back to this planet. We are so fascinated with outer space and what it holds that we don’t give staying on Earth permanently a second thought. We’re ready to move on to new frontiers. More than anything we simply think it is fascinating.

I’ll be your huckleberry. Who knows? I might outlive the other 6 billion (minus 1) if things keep going the way they are now…

Why send a human..the Japanese are perfecting the humanoid robot, and we could use their expertise.
It seems they are pretty advanced..serving tea, climing steps, directing traffic.
Why not send a bunch of their humanoid robots to Mars and have them build a space station- then we can send a human after the station is built and operating.
I don’t know where these engineers come from, but we need to work smart not hard.

The idea that you can explore the galaxy without risk and death is ludicrous. People risk their lives every day for no more then the exhilleration of the risk itself.
If Columbus and other explorers had the same mentality when regarding the vastness of our oceans then there would be no place called America.
No risk no reward, folks.

Sending a mission to Mars, in this day and age, would be a GROSS waste of money, resources, and manpower. There is so much to be addressed right here on earth that the money and manpower would be FAR BETTER spent working on. NASA = KEY MEMBER OF THE US MILITARY COMPLEX

Sounds like this numbskull totally missed the point of the Apollo program. Of course there was pioneer spirit. There was no shortage of daring, ambition, courage or vision. BUT… there was never, EVER a question about the crew’s return. The US public would never accept sending astronauts into space on a suicide mission. Even the Russians weren’t crazy enough to send a capsule to the moon if there was no chance to get the crew back. It was always, ALWAYS part of the plan that the crew should travel to the moon and then return from their journey. If they couldn’t solve the problem of how to get the crew back, the journey simply WOULDN’T HAPPEN. The author of that article is therefore clearly an idiot.

Taking calculated risks is one thing. Committing government sanctioned suicide is another.
This proposal is baloney. If we can build a vehicle that can take a person to the moon, and to Mars (with all that it entails), we can build it to return that person to Earth. Sending an astronaut on a one-way trip to Mars would be senseless. Why don’t we just cremate one and send his/her ashes, and avoid the need for life support on the outward journey?
This proposal would not unify the world any more than the moon landings or ISS have done. I’m sure, however, that we would experience collective regret if we went through with this.
The idea is to enable more people to go into space, not fewer. We’re on a track to do that, now (not fast enough). Sending one person to Mars on a one way mission would be nothing more than a stunt.
Decades ago Kennedy’s speech included the phrase “… landing a man on the moon, and returning him safely to Earth”. The limiting factor we face now is not lack of technical talent, nor bravery, nor confidence. It’s money. We want to go back into space to explore and to stay. This stunt that Mr. McClane describes would do little or nothing to create forward progress in fulfilling that Vision – and it might conceivably be detrimental. We have matured as a country in regard to our space program. We now view it as a journey, and do not impatiently long for a single accomplishment. We have to use our resources wisely to build a sustainable infrastructure. We should start simply, and accomplish what we can early, but we also need to do this in a way that nurtures commercial enterprises, in order to garner economic benefits, which would solidify long-term support.

More on the lighter side…Dont you think that we should as(true concerned americans) be more focused on identifying and alarming police of the potential islamic terrorists in our own society here! Think about it!

I’d rather seem them expand the space station and set up a colony on the moon before we send anyone on a one-way trip to Mars. At least with a moon base, we’d stand a chance of rescuing them if something went wrong. Or they could get a working Earth-to-Orbit/Orbit-to-Station plane that works.

Isn’t there that guy Robert Zubrin whose work on a manned mission has been acknowledged by quite a few of his peers? Or do i watch too much of the Nat Geo channel?

I think this idea has merit, actually. A carefully planned trip would place a human on the Martian surface, alone for possibly decades. But within those decades the technology will improve, thus increasing the likelihood of getting another mission to the surface, either to colonize or return, carrying the original explorer. The idea works even better if the original crew consists of two members. The information sent back from Mars would also help speed up the next mission. Communication to earth also remains constant, so “alone” may not feel so alone. I don’t think it’s that farfetched, really.

hey Mike, heres a logical reason for not doing such a mission you (and your obviously gigantic intellect) may have missed….
A MAN/MANNED MARS MISSON COSTS AN INSANE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND EFFORT , WITH HARDLY A CHANCE FOR ANY NOTEWORTHY GAINS TO SHOW FOR IT , MOST EXPERTS AGREE ON THAT…. AND MIKE, THE $$ AND EFFORT COULD/SHOULD BE SPENT ON MORE PRESSING/IMPORTANT NEEDS OF HUMANITY,LIKE SOLVING THE ENERGY CRISIS GLOBAL WARMING AND MAKING MORE NUTRITIOUS FOOD AVAILABLE TO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH DAILY ,TODAY EVEN !!
read up on maslows’ theory of human needs, (which is social logic Mike) and guess what ?
nobody really cares whats on mars/going on on mars while they personally are starving ,with no water and without a roof over their head(s) ergo space exploration is not one of the basic needs ,and until we are doing better meeting those basic needs for more people on a day to day basis i say that manned space exploration is huge waste/mismanagement of time and funds and effort ,and so do the experts Mike.

One benefit everybody has missed about colonizing Mars: it’s insurance for humanity. If something happens to earth, the human race will not be extinct. Or has this already happened once? Where’s my Mission To Mars DVD…

Let the astronaut take along a backpack containing RDX to blow up a crater or two, and the entire Pakistani nation may volunteeer. We’d donate to send them too. Why send just one? Send all the “fedayeen”. One small leap for the IQ of Mars, one GIANT stride for the IQ of Earth. If they can burn a specially-made replica of Old Glory, they’d take their friends along too. Remember the guy who lit his own hair on fire trying to burn the US flag in Lahore?

This is freakin crazy! who would want to risk their life, family, friends, and everything else that is worth staying on this planet to go to Mars? this is so stupid! no one wants to go on a one-way trip to Mars. I f McLane is so crazy about it, then why doesn’t he go. I mean he is old and he is not losing anyone going to Mars and besides if he goes to Mars he will know he died fulfilling his dream! Personally, I would never go to some creepy planet alone, regardless the award!

As the man said, “Nobody gets out alive.” Or to echo Kenneth, life itself is a death sentence. The only issue would be in the time span. Are they thinking of sustaining a single human being on the surface of Mars for a normal lifespan, or six months and “poof”?

This planet, OUR earth needs OUR attention! NOT Mars! If Mr. McLane wants to go, as long as he spends his OWN money….GO! But not a single cent of our taxes or Government monies should go toward this!

James McLane III has to be employed with the Bush Adminastration,,,,,,right????LOL

Obama and his wife should go and he can then set up a new utopia one that perhaps his wife can be proud of…

Face it. It is the height of hypocrisy and futility to pour vast human resources into trying to make a dead planet a living one in the event that we turn this living planet into a dead one (which we are in the process of doing). If we can’t even manage this incredibly designed and intricately balanced ecosphere, how in the world are we going to re-create one somewhere else from scratch? They couldn’t even make “Biosphere 2″ work, a project that was never actually independent from this planet (biosphere #1). Besides, the real problem, as illustrated by that fiasco, was selfish human nature. Humans can run (even to Mars) but they cannot hide from their own inherently broken selves. Even though they possess the most complex supercomputer known (the human brain), a deadly virus has been downloaded into each mind. The only hope for mankind is for the Master Programmer to intervene. Get rid of the virus, take us off this terminally ill planet that we have ruined, wipe the world clean and start over again.

i think humanity does not deserve or has not earned the right to go to other planets and stars yet.
First we have to tackle the big problems: war, famine,global warming,to much people on earth,terrorism, crime ,injustice,poverty ,the limited energy resources,lethal or chronick illnesses and so on…
And , if we have solved all that and more,then we will be worthy to go to the stars.Do not get me wrong, i love space-travel and i am a life-long amateur astronomer.
But i will not set my own dreams above the good off all others.Space-travel is a luxury that we can not afford right now.Besides, i strongly doubt if going to Mars will ‘ unite’ humanity.

What a colossal waste of money. What do we get from NASA besides worthless bragging rights? Imagine what could be done with that money if you put it towards medical research or helping the less fortunate or countless other ways to help society. What a waste…

Well, maybe two.

What better symbol for the Bush years, than a long, hopeless, single-minded voyage?

I second GW! Or maybe Hillary! Since she won’t be the first woman president, maybe she can go to mars.

There is absolutely nothing we need to know about Mars that requires the deliberate sacrifice of life. Absolutely nothing.

The only answer to this stupidity is probably silence. Few know that due to the collision of heavy particles with th ebiological structures of that astronaut, his brain will be like a swiss chees upon arrival. With today’s technology, if you send a man to Mars, it has a good chance to arrive there at most a chimp.

I strongly believe going back to the Moon in the near future would be the best option. A trip to Mars would be better served after we learned how to survive on a lunar base, then apply those lessons learned to Mars when the technology becomes avialable to send an astronaut to the red planet.

use the money to be used for funding that mission for humanitarian purposes instead…

We’ll never go anywhere as long as we remain the close minded, war waging, divided, hairy monkey beings we are. It’s gonna be a long time til we’re evolved enough to take on interplanetary exploration. Don’t hold tour breath for this to happen. It’ll be another 30 generations before we’ready for this type of adventure.
But hopefully it will happen.

The real challenge has been to be real-time when exploring the surface of Mars. The signaling delays between Earth and Mars have made the exploration cumbersome. Even with a man on the surface of Mars the environmental suit would be too restrictive to be practical. The most practical way to get real-time with exploring the surface of Mars and to prepare for a surface environment would be to establish a space station in Mars orbit so that drones can be controlled in near real-time and surface samples can be transported to the orbiting space station for analysis. Until we can establish a long-term livable space station/ship any data gained by a live visit would be no better than what we have today.

Sending two would be better.
But it would be simpler sending two spacecraft. One to get there with the supplies for the ground landing etc.
Then a second ship which would return the astronauts, which could be lighter and faster.

If launching from the surface of Mars is such a “daunting issue”, then why was launching from the surface of the moon almost 40 years ago so easy? Earth = 1g, moon = .166g and mars = .377g.
Seems like only double the problem from the moon. I know, the moon liftoff was done in a sound stage!! Another “hole” in whatever NASA says.

Start a chain of unmanned supply landers to Mars now. We should be able to put them down relativly close to each other on the surface. With in five years we should have enough water, food and supplies stockpiled there to then send a small group of people. They could survive as for as long as we kept the supply chain moving to them. Eventually they could become self supporting. It may still be a one way trip but if we do it right they may not need or want to come back.

Why go to Mars? What’s the point? Haven’t we done enough harm to planet Earth? Oh! I see! Let’s spread the stupidity of mankind and his warring ways, generation after generation. Rah! Rah!

His analogies to Armstrong, Lindbergh, Columbus and so on are faulty. While they knew they MIGHT not return from their trips, I don’t think they would have gone if they knew in adavance they were sure not to return. Just because some guy is an ex-NASA engineer doesn’t mean he’s not a crackpot ;)

Its obvious many people in this blog don’t read up on the benefits to mankind that NASA has given them. Much of the technological breakthroughs we have today were started at NASA, read, understand, get an education. By the way, a one way trip with no hope of return is just dumb. Even if hope is only at 5 percent.

It really doesn’t have to be a one-way trip. A return vehicle can be put into orbit around the planet. A lander can be refueld from the known elements on Mars, docked with the orbiting vehicle and be on its way to Earth. We even could rotate people to and from. It is all possible. It wouldn’t really be a suicide mission, but a lengthy one.
Why send man? It is only logical. Rovers and robots can only do so much. They can also fail very quickly just from a little dust.
The advancements and invetions resulting from a manned mission are endless. What are all of the inventions to date credited to space exploration? Lots.
Humans have no choice but to go to Mars eventually. As the sun ages further, it will get so hot it will vaporize this planet. Mars will be a livible planet for quite some (something like a million years) time until the sun dies.

too many comments to read in one sitting, but i am overjoyed that so many folks applaud and believe in future space exploration. they may not agree on the how and when, but they are excited by the possibilities.

The idea will be acceptable only after a solution is found to the impact of heavy mass particles, accelerated by Fermi fields, on neurons. People don’t seem to understand the real impossibility of this mission! You send a human, and it arrives a human with monkey-level intelligence, due to BRAIN DAMAGE. Has anyone visited the NASA Medical center in Washington D.C.? I did. Does anybody know how many astronauts ever returned with only mild biological damage from trips to outer space? 2%.
Today’s technology must provision for a rocket that has 10-inch lead walls to fully protect Life in Space… Phisicists or cultivated readers know what I am talking about.

Screw space we know more about space then we do about our own damn ocean. lets explore that first then go mess up space.

No…
before whole the galaxy destroy….
on earth there will be 3 monsters which will test our faith….

going to mars isn’t much more complicated than going to the moon, nor would it be muhc more complicated to send humans to our nearest neighboring solar system Alpha Centauri.
Really makes you think twice about the credibility of the 1969 moon landing, which was supposedly carried out before most of us even existed. If we really did that, then we can do anything.

The one way scenario is completely unacceptable. Why? There is nothing on Mars worth dying for.
Besides, what’s the hurry? Let’s get a roundtrip scenario feasible and do this the right way. In the meantime, there’s more than enough work for robots for the next 50 years.

This article is not true. There is just as strong of an argument for a successful round trip. It requires sending the return trip fuel first and then the man mission. A two stage event.

I think do a one way ticket is crazy. But why not send a man and a women. Then when they get there if they can breath the air on mars maybe they can start a new colony.
Then he or she would be alone for the greatest trip for the human race.
But with a what we have in technology maybe it would not have to be a one way trip.
Who ever does go may the Lord our God be with you always.

Life is a one-way trip for all of us.

People die every day for much less glorious causes from lack of medical insurance to hunger to war. All the moralizing is ridiculous in view of the fact that we allow people to die every day. Moreover, that is the inevitable nature of reality.
I would be unsurprised if a starving parent would sacrifice themselves for a noble cause like this to win a better life for their kids. That may be inhumane, but it’s a hell of a lot better than just letting the same person starve and not providing them with anything, which is the current default.

A kamikaze trip to Mars is not what an engineer would consider a successful mission. Whatta dumb idea. I don’t think technology is to fault for a round trip to Mars but money. Huge unbelievable money.

Sounds similar to the debate before we explored the moon

What I’m having trouble getting over in response to this article are the responses. Spending our tax money on a manned mission to Mars, right now, is a bit of a stretch. However, think about all of the money that is spent on defense, or our bogus and greedy occupation of the Middle East, not to mention the time, energy and money wasted complaining about it (myself included). Think how much better of a place America would be if it weren’t militaristic, and attempted for ONCE in it’s history to be self-sufficient. And now you’re complaining about a pie-in-the-sky plan to send one person on a one-way trip to Mars? Secondly, for those of you that want to send politicians to Mars: what’s the first country that comes to mind when it comes to political exile? The United States. Do you honestly want a repeat of that? Another nation to destroy another planet?
Think about it.

Guys, come on we all know that mankind has no interest in fixing things in here, starvation, violence and nonsense is never going to be fixed, that is how the powers that are want it to be.
So please stop saying that we should use the money to fix things here since it will never happen, we have more than enough food to feed everyone on earth and resources to shelter everyone as well, however that we will never do that, you want to make a change then stop talking and stop paying taxes, if everyone stopped financing the nonsense than it would stop, yep thats right everyone that has ever payed the government anything is guilt of murder and atrocities, or are you guys naive enough to think that your money is only used for good purposes?
We all need to stop being 20-35% slaves of the government and financial institutions, it is our money that the government kills with, I am not against taxes however I am 100% against paying taxes and let someone else decide how to use that money, I should be able to dictate where my money will be spent, for example for humanitarian aid/non violent purposes only, that way I wouldn’t be responsible for murder and even worse atrocities.
So people wake up and demand that your money be spend for good causes only, oh while I am at it, for God’s sake stop freaking financing everything and demand that your money be backed by gold/silver, it doesn’t make sense that our tax dollars be given freely to bankers to pay interests in the money that they printed for us, it is a scam it is given bankers money in exchange of nothing in return, in short it is bankers/government stealing from it’s citizens, wake up people Federal Reserve Corporation owns the US and guess who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation? I dare you to go find out!

I know some great people for this job…anyone serving 3 – 5 life sentences!
They can have all the freedom they want…on Mars!
If we don’t have the technology for a return trip then, NASA has been stealing billions trying to develop space travel that uses firecracker technology! Beam me up Scotty!

i think it would be great for someone to go to mars and that person might be a hero no matter what happens

even better, we could send someone to uranus…any volunteers for a one-way mission to some other deep and dark place?

UnderCover4Ever is ready. Where do I sign up at?

Money? Americans waste more money than any other nation on the face of the planet. I live in a used auto pipline state. The sheer number of used cars is staggering. One can extrapolate for the rest of the states and it becomes mind boggling. May be we save a few dollars here and there, educate are children better, and some day we’ll take on the moon again and then Mars. One fact that gets forgotten, the Earth is dying. Why not get a leg up on survival. Granted it may take a few million years, but hey, why not?

honestly you have millions of volunteers … every one would love a chance to trip down the space way to another planet…. but to colonize all you need is to keep sending down air supply and food not so hard is it ….if we can send send satellites and rovers we can defenately send food and air and supplies to construct…

If it was a colonizing mission, I’m sure lots of people would volunteer to go. I know I would (provided NASA accepted Greeks for astronauts :-))

Columbus and all the other explorers new their was a risk, but not a guaranteed one way ticket to death. We are human beings with a soul, not an animal. Respect life.
The 5th commandment states thou shall not Kill.

Due to the repParty who pulled the carpet from the space program back in 1973,The US has been behind nearly 35 yrs ago.poltics as usual.the only reason george w Bush has shown any type of intrest is that he and his co herts have scrwed everything else up in iraq and here at home.The feasable chance of sending a sucide astronaught to mars is out of the qwestion.It would be like japan,or al qieda?go figure.we have the technology and the resources if they are redirected toward something that would be more productive and would have a more postive end result on the entire world in how we live.it would have to be more than one astronaught as in the apollo missions,and the shuttle would be involved in later missions as well.this is why there pushing for a lunar modualr base station.

the fact is the technology to go to Mars does not exist…
When the brothers Wright began their quest, the technology for a lightweight powerplant had to be designed and built by them, the technology for designing and building a propeller had to be created by them, the method of controlling their craft had to be created by them, the extent data for how a wing provided lift was wrong and had to to be studied and developed anew.
Before the mission to the moon computers filled entire floors of buildings. The scientists and engineers created a computer small enough to fit in the tiny space capsule.
I can’t fathom the human genome project to have come into fruition without that type of world shaking technology.
So, if the technology doesn’t exist now then it must be created. What and how the requirements for a space mission will be met is the exciting part. It is exciting because the fall out from that type of knowledge holds promise for solving many of the issues others listed for not pursuing a journey of this proportion.
I am personally not so much in favor of a suicide mission as I am for taking on the impossibly difficult problems associated with such a task. I recognize that many are unwilling or unsuitable to a challenge like the one in the article. I think it may be more than unfair to hinder the progress of those few who are up to it.

Robert Zubrin – Mars Direct – Mars Society.
The technology by and large exists today. There are modifications that need to occur, its the logistics of getting to mars that makes it interesting. Forget volunteers. There are people that are training for it today. My only regret is I’m not one of them. I’m sure my kids are glad.

This mission is worth doing. Period. Anyone that thinks otherwise should just get out of the way, and let us go boldly…

How do you equate one way with death sentence? I did not interpret it that way.You have a death sentence as soon as you are born.Duh!

Before we invite the fire and brimstone into this discussion, lets try and tone down the “Birth is a death sentence” vein. A one way trip to Mars is not the same Mike. Its what we choose to do with our lives and who we in turn affect that matters. Turning Mars into some mausoleum for a desperate attempt to get someone there at all costs makes no sense and would be nothing more than a stunt. One that could undermine future support for continued exploration. The minds need to be changed down here then a careful technology build up for a safe manned return mission. We will want to meet these people afterwards. Martyrs are useless except to those who have already lost hope.

Sarah said..
Instead of wasting soooooo much money on a mars mission and supplies, shouldn’t we worry more about our starving and homeless families in this country? NASA should donate to that first.
Then we would have a bunch of starving and homeless Nasa folks!

I want to commend the works of the astronauts and physicists in today’s world. But, I want to know what it takes to be an astronaut and also would like to have an advise from you on what I should do or know as an ASTRONAUT to be. THANKS.

It’s not likely that a person making such a trip would arrive sane, or remain sane very long if he or she did. And, of course, there is the question of their mental balance in the first place.
Human beings are social creatures. We cannot function properly with some degree of socialization. Just the knowledge itself that you are going to be alone for the rest of your life would unhinge most people.

Send me there with a fine female specimen and some way for us to sustain ourselves there and I’ll go! We’d be the Adam and Eve of another planet! I’m totally serious. I’d go.

Jim McLane has expanded on his original proposal in the Jan/Feb issue of the science magazine “SEARCH”.

I’d go.

Americans would never do this. The Chinese on the other hand…

If we send people on a one way trip it will more likely be a sustainable activity. If we send some people there on a return trip, it will be so expensive that no one will want to do it again for another 50 years. Also, sell rights to a TV network, and the video from all the cams will be edited into a nightly 30 minute show from Mars. That would pay for the trip and make a profit. The whole world would tune in every night!! You’d soon have people from all countries wanting to go!

If mankind would have learnt from the past a colony on mars already could be reality. Imagine all money spent for weapons, aircraft carriers, submarines, atomic bombs, etc. since the second world war would have been spent to explore space…
Each person that became rich because of producing or selling weapons also could have become rich by producing space ships or parts of it. But where is the demand? It seems hate is stronger than curiosity. But the nature is clever. Unworthy life will die, maybe ironically by danger from space (e.g. an asteroid) because unworthy life is unprepared and unworthy life doesn’t understand that a little biosphere (e.g. one planet) is easier wiped out than a big biosphere (e.g. a solar system). … just the time constant in space is another one than on earth …