It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 1-Way-Trip

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:01 PM
I've been wondering this for quite some time now; why has no one ever put a group of people together that are willing to go on a 1-way-trip deep out into space, outside of our solar system, in the hopes of new discoveries, whether it be discovery of extra terrestrial life forms, or search for planets that are potential planets for migration of humans. It seems that that would be a better idea that sending countless people into the orbit of our own planet, or distant satellites that in the end are nothing more than computers/robots. I think sending a group of humans that knew they were never going to be coming back would yield much greater results; assuming that they did make it deep into/out of our solar system.

I hope no one has started a topic about this before; I did a quick search and didn't find any but I might have missed them. Anyways, I guess my main question is, why has no one ever formed a group of people that were willing to go on a 1-way-discovery/research-trip in the hopes of new information arising about life and the 'anatomy' of other nearby solar systems. Especially since I personally know several people in the science field that would be more than willing to partake in such an endeavor. And also, what types of discoveries do you think they might find, in comparison with those made by high-power satellites and 'robots' sent to other planets.


posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:13 PM
Several reasons.

It would take massive amounts of food, water, and oxygen to support them. You're speaking of decades worth.

Plus tools and supplies for any repairs the ship will need. There won't be any pit stops, nor other ships to bring parts if something goes wrong.

Radiation would be a big problem too. A few months isn't going to cause to many problems, but years worth of exposure will. Some of which can't be blocked by the lining of the shuttles.

Don't forget lack of gravity either. That many years without gravity will cause bone and muscle density loss. If (and it's a huge if) they actually did manage to reach anything of importance, their bodies would no longer be able to support them in a gravity enviroment.

The only way I could see something like this happening, is to construct an artificial planetoid. A miniture earth, where a self sustaining can be set up for food, water, air, and fuel production.

Unfortunately, we don't have the know how to do that yet.

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:16 PM
I know what you mean, but I still think it would be worth the risk, at least once. Just to see how far they would make it, even if it was only to Mars, that'd be better than what we have accomplished as far as human travelers before.


posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:24 PM
A planet OK, but leave the solar system and they would all die of old age a relatively short distance away. Unless theres some super cool age extend-o device in the mix.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Omniscient
I know what you mean, but I still think it would be worth the risk, at least once. Just to see how far they would make it, even if it was only to Mars, that'd be better than what we have accomplished as far as human travelers before.

Alas, as test pilot Chuck Yeager said: "There are old pilots and ther are bold pilots. But there are very few old, bold pilots."

Even if you could get a group of explorers to commit to what is essentially as suicide mission, and even if the the public could be persuaded to accept, and financially support, "Suicide in the Name of Science"; the current level of technology is simply not sufficent to allow our hapless explorers to get far enough out to be of any real benefit.

Consider, Mars is out closest "planetary" neighbor; yet with current tech, a trip to Mars would take the better part of a year. And we are still working on systems that would allow a crew to survive that relatively short hop.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:24 AM
Ive wondered this for a while...A kind of Red Dwarf thing...

I decided it would be a bad idea because they would die before they got anywhere useful...Unless they reproduced aboard the ship???

But once again...where would the supplies come from? They would need generations worth of food and water...and at present we do not have the tech to give them that!


posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:07 AM
If the technology becomes avaliable to keep people alive in space, Metal that protects wholly from radiation, A device to create gravity on a ship and a ship that can go faster i think it would be a great idea, but would NASA or whoever have the guts to attempt it??????

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:16 AM
a rotating ship would create its own gravity, and all manner of things could shiled them from radiation - theres plenty of stuff out there that can cope with it - Why not build the craft in space, hollow out a big old piece of rock and put the craft in the middle? say 1 kilometer deep will provide all the shileding and defensive capabilty youl will ever need!

I'm all up for voting to go on a mission like this. If the world ever asked for volunteers to man a mission like this, i'd vote hell yeah ill go!

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:07 AM
Im sure you could find people willing to even go to Mars on a one way mission. This would of course drastically cut down on the cost since their would be no need for a return trip or the fuel needed to get you back.

The way you mentioned a one way mission about looking for potential planets for migration really sounds like a "ARK mission" were a massive self sustaining ship would leave our solar system heading for a new star with everything needed to start a new civilization when they arrived even if the orginal people that left didnt live long enough to arrive their decendants . These are almost always one way designs.

These type of missions are technologically possible without using anything radically advanced like warp drives, wormholes etc.. We dont even know if those will ever work anyway.

Thanks to time dilation we can travel to the most distant stars without ever breaking Lightspeed (LS). But these will also be one way missions in a way, because going say 99% LS you may be able to reach the middle of the Milkyway in say 4 years your time on the ship but 10,000 plus years will have went by on earth. This could be pushed even farther as you went closer to LS. 99.9% LS you could in theory travel to the most distant Galaxies in a human life time but on earth and everywhere eles billions of years would have went by. Earth would be a charred cinder by then so their would be no return trip.

If warpdrives, wormholes etc.. dont pan out "one way missions" using time dilation may be our only method for reaching the distant stars no matter how advanced we get.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:08 PM
One word:


A huge spinning drum. The inhabitants would live inside the drum and centrifugal force would create artificial gravity along the perimeter. The design would be quite simple. The more simple it is, the fewer things likely to break or need repair.

Cover the outside of the drum with solar panels to supplement a nuclear reactor and power would be plentiful.

Use hydroponics to grow crops and fish farms to provide protein. These could be maintained by simple robotics and automation to ease human responsibilities. To provide intense light to power the hydroponics you could use a simple (solid state too) fiber optic magnifier pointed at the sun.

Water, air, waste, etc can all be recycled easily now days.

This thing would basically be a very large spinning biosphere in space.

I would HIGHLY recommend the resources to breed, as the trip could easily last many many decades. Would be quite a bummer for the craft to outlive the crew…

And the best thing of all is that this entire tech is available today, right now. But who would have that kind of cash to do it? Especially with an almost none existent likelyhood of a return on investment.

Another challenge would be: What would you do when you find something? You couldn’t exactly land, check it out, and then take off again.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by skippytjc]

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by skippytjc

Another challenge would be: What would you do when you find something? You couldn’t exactly land, check it out, and then take off again.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by skippytjc]

Thats a good point and really these arent practical unless we have the tech to identifiy worlds that can support earth life before we go.

Imagine you take off for a star 10 light years and it takes you 100 years to get there but when you get there you find they are not any planets that can support human life

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:55 PM
Ok so you park in a massive outer orbit of the solar system... take a huge telescope ( like hubble but mounted on your ship ) and do a long range recce of the area. have a fleet of robotic probes to crash into any planets you think may have life, and pray to God that theres not a race of pinked skinned, ultra violent bipedal chimpanzee descendants waiting for you as you touch down.... or they'll do a roswell on your hide......

Ok j/k aside, long range sensors and telescopes and youll still be able to maintain a decent speed...if no luck just turn on the boosters and off you rush once again till you find a place to call home....


posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:11 PM
Yeah, even if we could get that far, the whole "landing and then taking off again" would be a problem. But aside from that, I think even a 1-way-trip to Mars would be highly beneficial, and I don't think that would be impossible at all. Even if didn't find anything out about new life, the simple ability to visit it and make new discoveries seems to be worth the efforts and 'suicides'.


log in