A One-Way Trip to Mars: It is Time for NASA to GO.... or go away

[BrentWil]

This article piqued my interest.

To Boldly Go

The exploration of Mars has been a priority for the space programs of several nations for decades, yet the prospect of a manned expedition continually recedes in the face of daunting and well-recognized challenges. The long travel time to Mars in zero gravity and high radiation conditions would impose a serious health burden on the astronauts. The costs of developing the launch vehicle and assembling the large amount of equipment needed for the astronauts to survive the journey and their long sojourn on the Martian surface, together with a need to send all the fuel and supplies for a return journey make a manned Mars expedition at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the Apollo program.

In our view, however, many of these human and financial problems would be ameliorated by a one-way mission. It is important to realize that this is not a "suicide mission." The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony. They would be resupplied periodically from Earth, and eventually develop some "home grown" industry such as food production and mineral/chemical processing (Zubrin and Baker 1992; Zubrin and Wagner 1997). Their role would be to establish a "base camp" to which more colonists would eventually be sent, and to carry out important scientific and technological projects meanwhile. Of course, the life expectancy of the astronauts would be substantially reduced, but that would also be the case for a return mission. The riskiest part of space exploration is take-off and landing, followed by the exposure to space conditions. Both risk factors would be halved in a one-way mission, and traded for the rigors of life in a cramped and hostile environment away from sophisticated medical equipment. On the financial front, abandoning the need to send the fuel and supplies for the return journey would cut costs dramatically, arguably by about 80 percent. Furthermore, once a Mars base has been established, it would be politically much easier to find the funding for sustaining it over the long term than to mount a hugely expensive return mission.

We are in a time in which we are short in money and short in imagination. A one way trip to Mars offers something that would be cheap and amazing. It could be the beginning of a new frontier. The possibilities are endless. This is something the private sector will not do but once done the possibilities would be endless. This is something that the government should do. It is time to reignite the imagination of mankind and the World.

We should go to Mars and stay.

[Electric Monk]

1. Peaked or piqued?

piqued - past participle, past tense of pique (Verb)
1. Stimulate (interest or curiosity).


A one way trip is the only way it's gonna happen in my lifetime. Doing a round trip requires exponentially more fuel and other logistical challenges.

[BrentWil]

2. piqued... THanks...

And it would be much cheaper and the start of a truly new frontier. Would be a huge leap and advancement for mankind.

[LostInAnomie]

3. I'd jump at the chance.

The chance to take part in on of the most important ventures in mankind's history would be too hard to pass up.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. I respect Bob Zubrin and the enthusiasm he brings to this issue.

But I don't think it's realistic to expect NASA to send anyone, anywhere, one way. Not on the first trip.

If a consortium of private interests decided to do something like that, though.. who knows? There are Billionaires whose cash reserves dwarf NASA's very small budget.

Long term, I think living on, and terraforming, Mars is an inevitability. (Wouldn't it be great if we could figure out a way to offload our excess CO2 into their atmosphere? 2 Birds with one stone.)

But NASA will get humans to Mars. I'm hoping in my lifetime. I think advanced technologies like the VASIMR engine could make the mission profile much more feasible.

[BrentWil]

8. They Would Have to be told to do it. NT

[Motown_Johnny]

5. Mars would be a living hell

It is not a livable planet. You would spend most of your time in a tiny living space trying to exercise enough to stay healthy in the lower gravity.


You would need to produce all your own food. Good luck with that in such a difficult environment. Mars has no magnetic field. Radiation is going to be a problem not only for yourself but for whatever you are raising to eat.


Mars is a hell hole. The idea of trying to live there with extremely limited sources is not reasonable.




Sending robotic missions makes much more sense for the foreseeable future.

[BrentWil]

9. You would send missions to give them more supplies and to continue to expand the base camp

Plus more people would follow.

[The Second Stone]

6. Mars has no atmosphere

worth speaking of. Human beings cannot live inside for the balance of a regular life.

As dumb an idea as going to Mars and back at current speeds, a one way trip is health (mental and physical) suicide.

[TheWraith]

7. I prefer the proposals to start terraforming, instead.

Starting by melting the Martian polar caps. Catch is you need government approval for that, because you need nuclear-armed payloads.

[BrentWil]

10. The only real way to do that...

Is to get humans there... and there to stay