What will be the outcome for the 4 people who take the one way trip to mars?

why dont we just send hundreds of probes loaded with frozen sperm and eggs to the outer reaches of the universe with instructions on fertilization...maybe, just maybe.

JadeStar
There is no reason the challenges of such a trip can not be overcome. We've done this repeatedly through history.

It's kind of not the same thing. We've never sent people off somewhere for any length of time where there is no possibility of obtaining your own food, water, air, or even the protection of a magnetic field.

And the reasons for doing it are different. For the most part, in the past, people went on voyages of discovery because they were looking for fame and fortune. Gold, spices, trade routes, etc. The sad, suicidal people signing up for an early Mars mission will get the fame, but never the fortune.

I think there are enough people interested in the idea of it that it will someday be accomplished. People will try and die on the way. People will make it there and die. But without a faster, more efficient propulsion system, it won't lead to large-scale migration or colonization. It will be kind of a crazy stunt. Not a lofty endeavor of science and exploration.

Soloprotocol
why dont we just send hundreds of probes loaded with frozen sperm and eggs to the outer reaches of the universe with instructions on fertilization...maybe, just maybe.

Cell damage from radiation after a few thousand years would probably put the kibosh on that. But someday we'll send our intelligent, self-replicating robots out into the universe. They will be our offspring. Human beings are not built to live anywhere but Earth.

I'd bet they don't EVER actually attempt to send anyone into space because its a Reality TV show based on Ad revenue, ala Capricorn One. The ad money and TV viewer numbers lay in showing these people "get ready" for space travel and colonization, NOT the actual space flight and colonization. There is simply no way to support these people long term with supplies and MAKE A PROFIT, should the colonizers be successful in surviving day to day, but also at the same time not be sufficiently interesting in their day-to-day activities to generate enough "TV viewers". I personally don't think its possible to be BOTH entertaining enough to draw viewers AND be successful at surviving the Martian wilderness long term. The minute the ads don't pull in the review to justify their resupply, is the minute these first Mars explorers dies of some cause related to not being resupplied.

BUT, if they did die for some reason, I'd bet the viewing public would never it see on the live TV feed, showing exactly how the mission failed due to suicide, accidental death, murder, disease, etc. No matter how you slice it we the viewer will be getting a "Price, Whitman & Haddad" endgame "basking under the Maui Sun" on broadcast TV, but in actuality just rotting/mummified corpses sitting around an inflatable Mars base. Heck its reality TV, they might try to give them "forced daily tasks" to get their food, water, etc from a locked resupply crate. I highly doubt they'll be allowed to just sit around all day. That would be a boring "no go" for people buying advertising in the time slot.

Also I still don't get the selection process, wouldn't an experienced medical doctor, engineer, pilot/navigator and biologist be the BARE minimum part of the crew? Does every "approved" applicant so far have these academic backgrounds or combinations of? I've always been under the impression that Astronaut/Cosmonaut selection is difficult because you need to find people who are BOTH smart enough to be a doctor/MD/engineer/biologist AND also at the same time, be mentally tough enough to comfortably live like a less-intelligent prisoner constantly in solitary confinement with no stimulation outside of the confined area. Add in a "popularity" contest via Facebook and "proper/safe selection" of candidates becomes absolutely impossible

Blue Shift
It's kind of not the same thing. We've never sent people off somewhere for any length of time where there is no possibility of obtaining your own food, water, air, or even the protection of a magnetic field.

It kind of is. That's a narrow vision if there ever were one. Water on Mars is confirmed. We can make our own air. We can take our own food and the ability to grow more. We can overcome issues of the magnetosphere. None of these are insurmountable; indeed, none of these issues are particularly difficult. We have proven we can survive anywhere, and distance is not part of the equation.

And the reasons for doing it are different. For the most part, in the past, people went on voyages of discovery because they were looking for fame and fortune. Gold, spices, trade routes, etc. The sad, suicidal people signing up for an early Mars mission will get the fame, but never the fortune.

No, they're not. More assumptions. You said it yourself: "Voyages of discovery." Darwin went on the Beagle on a "voyage of discovery" to study nature. He already had a fortune he inherited and was indifferent to fame. He hadn't even formulated his theory yet. But as far as fame goes, these people would have more than most anyone. You said: "Fame and fortune." They'd certainly have more than enough of the former.

And as for the latter, the idea that these Mars colonists won't have fortunes? Say what? The endorsement deals alone would provide fortune to their families. It's not as if they are going to need a Rolls Royce.

And the whole idea that they are "suicidal" is laughable. With less gravity and a more pristine environment devoid of Earthly pollutants they may live a far longer lifespan than is normal on Earth. Is it dangerous? Sure! So is sailing across the Atlantic in a square-rigger. So is sky diving, but you know, some people enjoy that sort of thing.

The reasons for not attempting this you have given are invalid, most of them simply not true at all. The bottom line is that YOU don't want to go! And you don't have to! So why diss those who want to go? It's no skin off your nose. Besides, you can be famous, too. As the new colonists are transmitting back from the surface of Mars, you can be famous as the guy who said it couldn't be done! You can stay in your cave as long as you want to, but it's rather mean-spirited not to wish these folks a bon voyage.

schuyler
You can stay in your cave as long as you want to, but it's rather mean-spirited not to wish these folks a bon voyage.

It's not mean-spirited. It's just that they think it's a worthwhile endeavor, and I think it's foolishness. I'm old enough to remember getting caught up in the hype of the space program and the race to the Moon. And then over the years realize that it was all just a big PR/advertising stunt for "Democracy U.S.A." We got some useful stuff out of the process like computers and telecommunications, but we got a lot of cool stuff out of World War II, also. The amount of actual science knowledge that we got from it was nominal, and arguably could have been gotten more economically by investing the same amount of money in developing robotic exploration. A good indicator of how important exploring the Moon is is how hard we've worked at it over the past 40 years. Answer: Not much.

But, like I said, people will probably still do it. Human beings are not known for being reasonable or very efficient. But I still have a perfectly valid personal opinion.

They will die there and their relatives will launch a class action against NASA for letting them take a ticket on a suicide mission and spend years in litigation. Eventually they will settle out of court.

What will probably happen is that they die, more than likely on the way there. I swear I heard somewhere that it would take roughly 3 months just to make it to the red planet - I'd go insane after 2 weeks (hence why I didn't apply). Granted, they would probably be "conditioned" at some point to be able to hold out that long, but training is only as good as the environment in which it's held (IE: In space, you can't open the door and quit - you're in it for the long haul, or dead).

I still don't understand why they cannot do a few mock runs on the moon - It's probably more feasible, and I'd think that if you can make a liveable environment underground on the moon, or at least a portable environment on the surface, setting one of those up on Mars would be a piece of cake.

As for what the survivors would find on Mars? Dust, oddly shaped rocks, and maybe a bacterium fossil. Oh, and a couple ET's that are watching from a distance, to make sure we never get farther than Mars.

-fossilera

I have a feeling of impending doom when thinking about this topic.

It'll be exciting when they first arrive, but the depression will sink in fairly quick. If the mission is going to be successful, one of the 4 needs to be a psychiatrist and another needs to be well-versed in medical knowledge. Perhaps the most important thing is that each crew member has a good relationship with the rest. Just a single argument can potentially ruin all their efforts.

They really need a crew of 10 or so to improve the chances of success. Perhaps they will increase the number of those going if there's a large number of applicants, but 4 is far too few imo.

Ghosts of Mars. The End.

Prisoners would make ideal candidates for this mission..
1..used to confined spaces.
2..3 meals a day..
3..a bed
4..a TV.
5 wake me up when we get there..

Well, the outcome will be a horrible, cold, lonely death by asphyxiation.

Or, you could wait until the air's about done, then just bleed the pressure down to Mars normal over a few minutes, you'll sort of go to sleep. THEN you'll die a horrible death by asphyxiation, but you won't care much.

Cinrad
They will die there and their relatives will launch a class action against NASA for letting them take a ticket on a suicide mission and spend years in litigation. Eventually they will settle out of court.

NASA have nothing to do with it.

They have distanced themselfs from the project.

Bedlam
Well, the outcome will be a horrible, cold, lonely death by asphyxiation.

Doubtfull.

As long as they have a supply of water they can create oxygen. You dont have to keep shiping oxygen out.

As long as they pick the spot on mars well they should be fine.

Food will be the biggest problem.

Draco211



They really need a crew of 10 or so to improve the chances of success. Perhaps they will increase the number of those going if there's a large number of applicants, but 4 is far too few imo.

Actually the plan is the to spend 4 every few years so the populaton will slowly rise.

reply to post by flipflop


Taking in consideration that these first pioneers will be selected because of their natural interest voor sciences, curiosity and the required skills to be on their own and among a few other people, these first inhabitans of Mars will have a ball...if they have everything to last a lifetime.

These people will always be remembered by mankind and will give a contribution to science which many scientist can only wish for. Reason enough to make the trip... live a usefull life and take your last breath with a smile on your face.

reply to post by boohoo

you need to find people who are BOTH smart enough to be a doctor/MD/engineer/biologist AND also at the same time, be mentally tough enough to comfortably live like a less-intelligent prisoner constantly in solitary confinement with no stimulation outside of the confined area.

That's my cue....

Send Jamie Dimon and the biggest Wall-Street racketeering aholes like him, who don't deserve to live on Earth, but are 'too big to jail/charge'. I think Mars would make an excellent life-sentence prison. Let the smartest dregs of the Earth go - and once they've set it up - one-way ticket for every sociopathic criminal that would normally be sent to some awful prison and kept in a cage.

Works for everyone: Dimon learns what it's like to be desperately alone and struggling to survive, and we are rid of the likes of him. Talk about deterrents to crime!!!

Being sent to Mars is probably going to become a more effective 'crime deterrent' or 'moral consequence' than even the idea of "Hell"!!

crazyewok

Doubtfull.

As long as they have a supply of water they can create oxygen. You dont have to keep shiping oxygen out.

If you can guarantee a supply of water. And if you have enough panel area. And if you get enough sun, year round. And if you don't have any breakdowns. Or fires.

Thus my comment, asphyxiation is the most likely end. I mean, if they land on the Big Rock Candy Mountain, they can grow food, too.

Blue Shift

But, like I said, people will probably still do it. Human beings are not known for being reasonable or very efficient. But I still have a perfectly valid personal opinion.

"Science fiction. You're right, it's crazy. In fact, it's even worse than that, it's nuts. You wanna hear something really nutty? I heard of a couple guys who wanna build something called an airplane, you know you get people to go in, and fly around like birds, it's ridiculous, right? And what about breaking the sound barrier, or rockets to the moon? Atomic energy, or a mission to Mars? Science fiction, right? Look, all I'm asking is for you to just have the tiniest bit of vision. You know, to just sit back for one minute and look at the big picture. To take a chance on something that just might end up being the most profoundly impactful moment for humanity, for the history... of history." --Ellie Arroway, Contact

"In our tenure on this planet we have accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage, hereditary propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders and hostility to outsiders, which place our survival in some question. But we have also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and our children's children, a desire to learn from history, and a great soaring passionate intelligence--the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our vision and understanding and prospects are bound exclusively to the Earth--or, worse, to one small part of it. But up there in the immensity of the Cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits us." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos p.318

reply to post by JadeStar


Well put