Would you volenteer to go to Mars? (if it was a one man

Would you volenteer to go to Mars? (if it was a one man - one way mission?), page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 7-3-2008 @ 12:06 PM by Now_Then

However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite doable, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane’s proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person.

Universe today

This guy sound quite serious in his ideas, and they do make sense in a way.

The big problems with manned missions to Mars are the consumables required for the crew - the extra size and complexity of the craft to transport them there and back, all the fuel required and of course the lander has to be able to launch off the surface - and supposedly dock up with an orbiter... All very expensive both in time resources and the all important money factor.

We send probes to Mars both to land and orbit no problem - they hardly require more than escape velocity capability, fuel to burn to point em towards Mars - some more fuel to enter orbit correctly and the cargo.

Would it be so much harder for the craft to be equipped to sustain a person for the duration of the flight and to land them successfully?

Would the world dismiss such a thing as a suicide mission of no real advantage? Or would this be a massive achievement for the human race?

And finally would you volunteer? I'm tempted to say I would - hell yhea I would!

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:08 PM by dascro62

I tell my girlfriend and family this so much they are probably sick of hearing about it. YES I would volunteer regardless.

This is why I get bothered when people want to shut down the nasa program because of a few deaths. I am sure the astronauts are well aware of the risks and gladly risk their lives.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:16 PM by guppy

I would say yes.

But for long trips, especially space exploration and colonization, I think it would be better to have couples. Being alone for the rest of your life is very straining on the pysche. Having a loved one at least gives your some grounding. Plus, who knows what situations arise out there. A second person can help greatly despite the cost of increase logistics.

Actually, I propose all astronauts in long-term space programs be paired off with a supermodel of their choice... And, NASA should accept my application.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:19 PM by antar

Well I think that you should always consider the Adam and Eve approach, it makes for a more interesting trip and a heck of a lot less loneliness. Plus if the earth was destroyed they could spend the rest of their days making the next generation, after all it would be their duty.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:27 PM by ZeroKnowledge

Actually i think that this kind of mission will be a depressing one. I mean , it will subconsiously say "Humans, the only way you going to see Mars is as dying of cold/hypoxia/dehydration/poison. And you will never come back."
That is not going to revive space exploration. Humans are explorators by nature, but inavitable death sentence as a result... America was re-colonised due to riches/wonders. People who explored Antarctica knew that there is a chance that they will come back.
So i think we should wait , it is just decade+ away. And then it will be a great moral booster.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:30 PM by Now_Then

Well I'm not sure how long they will actually have on the surface - weeks? months? open ended? It's all about getting the resources there - or ways obtaining the resources.

This sound to me to be doing this in the most minimal way possible - would they even plan to have a habitable structure landed with the person? Or do they plan to land them in a suit and that's about it - Orbital sky dive to Mars anyone? You could survive for a long period in just a suit if you also landed spare oxygen and power... But imagine landing with a supermodel.. Knowing that you could never get jiggy cos you take your suit off you'll die Arrrragh!

talk about drive you mad!

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:30 PM by Sleuth

I wouldn't have any problem volunteering. As a natural loner, solo is my preferred mode anyway. Since I'm not a social creature, that eliminates one huge problem right off the bat.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:48 PM by V Kaminski

One way, single person? Go ahead. I'm thinkin' "Adam and Eve" at a minimum... doable? Sure. So is suicide. This McLane fellow who was in charge of drying out weather damaged records in 1976 at JSC may be correct about doable. Ethically? Can't see it. One way? Completely doable.

Vic

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 12:56 PM by Nohup

No, thank you. I'm not quite sure I see the point of flying off to die on some lifeless rock. Yeah, maybe some of the science you could do might be of some value, but collecting data about the salt content of Mars rocks is hardly worth the heroics. People might be worth dying for, but not science.

In my personal opinion, anyone who would sign up for such a trip would have some serious mental problems.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 01:32 PM by Sleuth

reply to post by Nohup

That's a pretty judgmental statement. I'm about as normal as a person gets and I love the idea. I don't think you should assume such things about other people.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 01:36 PM by dascro62

Well if the idea was to do some menial task and then die then I wouldn't bother. But if it was to start to terraform or colonize it I would go in a heartbeat.

In my first post I assumed it wasn't simply to go and die

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 01:58 PM by Nohup

Originally posted by Sleuth
That's a pretty judgmental statement. I'm about as normal as a person gets and I love the idea. I don't think you should assume such things about other people.

Sure, it's judgmental. I said it was just my opinion. I figure anybody who would sign up for such a thing would most likely be a social misfit who might see this as a possible way to achieve some kind of fame or glory, someone with massively low self-esteem, likely depressed, suicidal almost by definition of the mission, and with other associated problems.

Most normal people have friends and family they love and want to be around, and the value of those relationships would far outweigh any possible amount of science or fame that could be gained. There would be something very, very wrong with somebody who wanted to fly off to another planet all by themselves.

In my opinion.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 02:13 PM by Shadow_Lord

I wouldn't sign up for it. It is not a succeful mission. The goal is to bring the person back, not to send them on a 1 way mission. Now, signing up for a mission designed to be there and back, with a risk of it being 1 way..yes that I would sign up for. If it failed, hopefully the knowledge of why it failed would help future missions and mankind's next step into place.

Our next step is not to send humans to their knowing death.

reply posted on 7-3-2008 @ 02:21 PM by ian990003100

where do i sign up?

I'd do anything to get of this rock!

As long as i had enough oxygen and a bag of peanut m&ms i'd be happy.

reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 12:37 AM by PimpyMcgibbins

reply to post by Now_Then

Who's to say we haven't been there before???

We know nothing about Mars.

[edit on 3/8/2008 by PimpyMcgibbins]

reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 01:02 AM by Chakotay

I think its already been done- by Steve Fawcett

If I were diagnosed with terminal cancer and had a year or two to live, I'd go for it.

Doable by The Other Space Agency, Branson or Baron Hilton.

Do a web search on 'Neil Armstrong's Joke' and you'll find a cover story for a mysterious radio transmission by Neil that many believe meant the Soviets had sent a guy one-way to the Moon- first.

I'd want 2-way video gear- on a secure channel.

reply posted on 8-3-2008 @ 02:21 AM by TXMACHINEGUNDLR