Buzz Aldrin says your ticket to Mars should be one-way only!?

Buzz Aldrin's Advice to NASA

I was just paging through the current issue of Popular Mechanics, mainly because I was interested in the opinion piece by Buzz Aldrin, in which he details his thoughts on how we should proceed if we want to land humans on Mars.

What really surprised me was what he had to say at the end of the piece, when he said that NASA should recruit astronauts who would be willing to become permanent residents of Mars, because the whole trip would be much easier and cheaper if we didn't have to worry about bringing them back.

Say what!?

He envisions a new breed of pioneering colonists going to Mars and never, ever being able to come home. He just barely touches on the idea, almost as if he wants to the reader to just take it as an afterthought, or something he kinda slipped in there in passing.

The ramifications of this are pretty huge, especially if the only justification is one of logistics and economics.

Think about it: Somebody volunteering for a one-way trip to Mars would have to either have no family ties that mattered to them, or they'd have to take their families with them.

So...

Permanent settlement on Mars, therefore, means an entire community, doing all the things people in communities do, such as marrying and making babies and raising new generations. And a new generation of people born and bred on Mars, with its small fraction of Earth's gravity, would surely have a very hard time of things if they ever tried to visit Earth, assuming that rockets traveling from Mars to Earth might some day become a part of the equation.

So, what Aldrin's advocating is that we essentially create a new branch of humanity, who would branch off from Earth humans and possibly evolve in genetic isolation from us? I suppose, of course, that there'd be nothing to preclude additional flights from Earth to occasionally keep the gene pool diverse, but still...

This is such an extreme notion that I have to wonder what Aldrin isn't telling us. Earlier in the article, he mentions the asteroid that might hit Earth in 2036, and what we might do about it. Like the one-way-ticket thing, he doesn't dwell on the subject, but I wonder if his real agenda for planting in our minds the notion of folks going to Mars and not coming back might be less about exploration and more about survival.

Aldrin does assert that NASA would have to select a personality type of Mars colonists that would be different from their traditional astronaut profile, and he specifically says they'd have to be "survivors." Could he be privy to inside dope regarding the likelihood of impending worldwide calamity, and could he be looking at Mars as a back-up storage device for human life; the ultimate Noah's Ark?

[edit on 14-7-2009 by flightsuit]

Survival is an aspect of colonization but it is not the only reason. A very good way to avoid the extinction of our species is to colonize other planets. But there is no reason to believe that Aldrin is hinting at our imminent destruction.

Aldrin is right. We belong on Mars and we need to think in terms of colonization. It is not an extreme or new idea. It is a logical extension of what humans have been doing since before we were humans. From wandering out of Africa, to the Polynesians who left Tahiti to colonize Hawaii with no intention of returning, to the pilgrims who left Europe. The only difference with colonizing Mars is the distance and the effort, the concept is the same.

reply to post by flightsuit


its not very different than the millitary...

i think many people would be willing to give up their own lifes to become "legends" and enjoy world fame.

Wouldn't the trip to Mars with tech that we can envision getting us there take so long as to viably be a one-way trip, time-wise?

It's a pretty weird question to pose, I kind of think of the ancient explorers setting off, not sure what they'd find or if they'd come back. Also, it poses the ethical question of procreation and raising children in a non-earth environment... pretty much deciding their futures for them, no choice when it came to adulthood of going to University or taking a year out or joining the circus or a rock band.

May well be a different thing if it were the survival of the human race, but if not we face the possibility that in the further future, when faster travel becomes "reasonably" fast enough, people playing catch-up might encounter some Mars-settlers that are of a very different mindset than humanity. I guess you'd have to send a decent sized community or plenty of sperm samples to prevent inbreeding, but even so I think there'd be trouble with such an isolated community.

I can imagine that it would be lonely on Mars and that isolation alone might drive people to suicide. It would have to be a reasonably sized community of people willing to abandon their earth ties.

Originally posted by Phage

The only difference with colonizing Mars is the distance and the effort, the concept is the same.

Also, no coconuts.

I agree though, our destiny lies up there ...
The sooner we take the first steps the better.

Coming back should be an option though for the first couple of peeps ...
What if there are evil monsters up there?
Or other people?

Well on top of this we are not only sending people one way, we would be sending a colony of people who must be willing to return to thier roots. No tv, or radio, as the only electricity would be from solar panals and batteries, which you would want to keep for the heaters and life support, and Radio back to space command. Don't forget that basically you would end up going back to farming, trying to keep the food and oxygen producers alive. Wake up and start farming, eat lunch, go out farming, come home when the sun is down to stay 'warm", read by firelight or candle light since you dont have enough energy to keep warm and have a light on. (dust storms would be a major issue if your solar panels dont get enough energy) it gets cold on mars at night. Im sure you would rather be warm then be able to read with a light on. as for cooking, you food will be mostly plant life as chances are you dont have enough grains or hay to feed animals, as it needs to be saved for the 'winter' months on mars. Alas your diet will be lacking in meat, so cooking is probably out. Its not a question of 1492 settlers exploring the world, as Columbus could bring animals to eat and they didnt use electricity back then. Our lives have been changed by alot of factors. We are not as liberated as the first settlers. If a person choses to go up there, the can go into depression from lack of entertainment, lack of thier natural foods they like to eat, and living on the edge of death all the time.

the perfect candidate will have to be a veagan who has distain for technology but still understands how to do scientific research using test tubes and such, has knowledge of radio communication, yet doesnt like sitting arround listening to the radio, not being anti gay, but the person cannot be gay as we are trying to establish a colony and to do so we must have children (unless he is willing to donate sperm). Have knowledge of farming and when to plant and harvest crops. and be willing to live life on the edge. Although several of these are amust, we can send several people who can have one aspect of the scientific knowledge.

so think of your family and friends and of perhaps your enemies (good place to stick them) and then think how few and far between people like this really are. unless we start hiring our astronauts from the prison population? where we take people on death row and we can send them off to mars (think along the lines of australia way back in the day) we give them the tools to survive and then send them off to the new 'prison planet' and let the colony build up that way.

My gut reaction to this is: who told Buzz to say this?

I don't believe Buzz makes statements just because he wants to do so. There is a choreography to everything that goes public from NASA even if it appears to be the ballet 'Swan Lake' choreographed by a chimpanzee with lots of lemurs, snakes, and condors as the 'dancers' or burning ships set out to sea with dead warriors set ablaze on their funeral pyres.

What I remain most interested in is what Armstrong has to say or rather isn't saying. His silence and his frequent refusal of public appearances is very odd and remind me a bit of the monkey "who speaks no evil."

reply to post by Pellevoisin

Aldrin hasn't had any connection to NASA for a long time. His article is a rail against NASA's current plans.

He's demonstrated more than once that he doesn't need anyone to tell him what to say.

Mars should be a segregated colony since it is rumored 'Women are from Venus and men are from Mars'.

Mars should be designated a 'Honey do' free zone open to all men and men only.

It should have a powerful military and self defense capability as I suspect the Venutians will be looking to conquer it one way or another by hook or by crook.

Once back on Mars we should adopt an Israeli type of thinking of "Never forget" lest the Venutians drag us back to Earth and enslave us again.

Oops got to go...it's time for me to take out the trash...yes dear I am, I am signing off now...right away sweetheart...

Life is just a cycle, as colonists came to America for the first time they knew chances are there was no ticket back, and as we go to Mars the first time we should be aware that chances are there will also be no way to return.

Life is just a cycle, history repeats itself, etc. We are all repeating everything.

Oh and I'd be totally willing to, it would be a whole new world, a whole new life, a whole new entire planet to explore, could you imagine? I'd be one the first groups to go so I could explore the deep caverns and caves of mars and hopefully discover proof of aliens and/or even life that exists underground, wow just wow, the possibilities are endless, it would just be like nothing any of us could ever imagine.

Plus getting off this planet and never coming back is a huge positive, believe me on this.

You may be interested in an old thread of mine that I dug up (sorry! - not trying to bust in on your thread!.. Yours is different but related)

Would you volenteer to go to Mars? (if it was a one man - one way mission?) ATS members gave some interesting responses if I remember... I'd do it for the glory!

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
My gut reaction to this is: who told Buzz to say this?

Yup! Despite what Phage points out regarding Aldrin's article being a rant "against" NASA, I would hardly call him one of the agency's detractors, and it seems that there is very little spontaneity in the words or deeds of any of NASA's legendary heroes, other than occasionally punching Bart Sibrel.

Originally posted by anubis9311...not being anti gay, but the person cannot be gay as we are trying to establish a colony and to do so we must have children...

Anthropologists and social scientists, among others, have been exploring the notion that there may, in fact, be an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality in humans, because in aboriginal hunter-gatherer cultures, individuals perceived as being gay or transgendered were tremendous assets when it came to functioning as shamans or medicine men, as well as assisting in the raising and protecting of the children of their brothers, sisters, and cousins.

Think about it. If you're going off on a hunting party, and you have to leave all the women and children behind, wouldn't you worry less if there were a male who could stay behind with them that you were absolutely sure would not sleep with your wife or daughter, but would kill or die to protect them?

Plus, can you imagine how drab Mars would be without gays?

i foresee a problem with the ` one way trip ` plan

old age and permanent injury

in short what would you do if the " productivity " of a colonists ` working life `was forcast to be LESS than his consuption in his ` old age / disability ` ?

if it really was a ` one way trip ` only deal - there is the very real posibility that , in a situation minicing the current crisis in the US social securoty program that the mars colony would stagnate then shrink , as the ` non working ` segment first used up more rescources than they generated in thier wotking life , then went on to further creat a net loss as they continued to consume more than the present working generation produced

you would have to evacuate the ` non productive ` - as the only other answer would be forced euthenasia

reply to post by ignorant_ape

Because there is no excess production there could be no excess consumption. The colony would be a truly interdependent society.The Inuit model would be followed. The beloved and wise elders would voluntarily wander out into the dust flows when their ability to contribute is gone, never to be seen again. Or maybe into the recycler.

[edit on 7/15/2009 by Phage]

Well that's all very depressing. If we're clever enough to get to Mars and inhabit it, we should damned well be clever enough to do so without sacrificing our humanity.

Do we even know what the reaction of the martian environment would be on a human?

Who would be the very first person to step off the shuttle, only to be instantaneously pulverized by worldly pressure?