Should there be a cheaper, ONE-WAY manned mission to Mars?

[Revtim]

Interesting Op-ed from the NYTimes:
Life (and Death) on Mars

Because of the planet’s relatively benign environment, it is theoretically able to support a permanent human presence. If provided with the right equipment, astronauts would have a chance of living there for years. A one-way trip to Mars need not mean a quick demise.
Every two years the orbit of Mars creates a window of opportunity to send fresh supplies at a reasonable cost. An initial colony of four astronauts, equipped with a small nuclear reactor and a couple of rover vehicles, could make their own oxygen, grow some food and even initiate building projects using local raw materials. Supplemented by food shipments, medical supplies and replacement gadgets from home, the colony could be sustained indefinitely.

Even if nothing went wrong, the astronauts’ lives would certainly be shortened by the harsh conditions. The lower gravity would create long-term medical problems and the cosmic radiation that penetrates the thin atmosphere is bound to increase the risk of cancer. Add in the debilitating effects of general privation, and the lack of sophisticated medical equipment, and the prospects for longevity look slim.

Would it be right to ask people to accept such conditions for the sake of science, or even humanity? The answer has to be yes. We already expect certain people to take significant risks on our behalf, such as special forces operatives or test pilots. Some people gleefully dice with death in the name of sport or adventure. Dangerous occupations that reduce life expectancy through exposure to hazardous conditions or substances are commonplace.

Sounds like an interesting idea. What say my fellow Dopers?

[Lord_Ashtar]

I highly doubt that NASA would have trouble recruiting people to live on Mars for the rest of their natural life. Hell, if I were an astronaut I’d jump at the chance.

[ShibbOleth]

In the immortal words of Bernie Taupin:

Mars ain’t the kind of place
To raise your kids
In fact, it’s cold as hell
And there’s no one there to raise them
If you did
*

[msmith537]

I can think of a lot of people I would like to maroon on Mars. Other than than, it sounds like a stupid idea to me.

[Rune]

I too would jump at the chance if they would have me (even if that meant leaving wife and children back home). I think they’d have no trouble finding volunteers.

One should think they could dig themselves down to escape the bad effects of radiation.

The idea is interesting because it’d force a continued interest in Mars, not just a been there done that mission.

Mitchener in his book Space talks about some similar plans for the moon back in the sixties.

ShibbOleth: I thought those words were Elton John’s (and Kate Bush)

• Rune

[BobLibDem]

Interesting point about the radiation. I wonder what levels of radiation are on the Martian surface. The atmosphere certainly provides far less protection than our own, but with the Sun so far away, would the levels be that hazardous?

I’m sure volunteers would be plentiful even with no return possible.

[beajerry]

The question arises: What will our responsibilities be if the person/persons once on Mars ask/beg to get back to Earth?

WinstonSmith- Bernie wrote Rocketman for Elton, as he did with many of Elton’s songs.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@beajerry

The question arises: What will our responsibilities be if the person/persons once on Mars ask/beg to get back to Earth?

I was under the impression that there would be no coming back. They would have to understand that from the very beginning or risk being disqualified.

[Rune]

@Lord Ashtar

I was under the impression that there would be no coming back. They would have to understand that from the very beginning or risk being disqualified.

A man can change his mind. I think the moral obligations are weak at best. A grown man, freely volunteered, knowledgeable of the consequences. On Mars as the result of his own choices. He is his own responsibility.

[scr4]

If you do a one-way mission, the base must be supported indefinitely and also designed for a long term stay. I just can’t see any government funding such an expensive project. I think a round trip would be cheaper.

Remember that getting from Mars surface to Mars orbit is very easy compared to an Earth launch. There’s much less air to push through.

Interstellar travel would be a different story. Rocheworld by Robert Forward is a pretty good story about such a trip.l

[Rashak_Mani]

The reduction in cost of making the Mars mission a “suicide” one are tremendous… its not merely 50% return journey. Probably like 65-75% weight reduction. Since you need to boost out of Mars and also carry the fuel to come back all the way to Mars too. Weight costs a lot to get out of orbit. So its cutting 2/3 costs… OR sending more stuff to allow their survival for longer.

Logically and Rationally speaking... its very good. I doubt NASA wants to put a foto of dead people as heroes who went on a one way ticket to death though.

[fortytwo]

I also believe that there would be no lack of volunteers to live, then die on Mars. I know this is hypothetical but my wife already knows I would go, seeing as we’ve discussed similar things in the past.
Even though I don’t have the necessary skills, I’m pretty sure I could lubricate the robot explorers, change the batteries etc. and make the tea for the scientists.
V

[Chastain86]

POTENTIAL FLAME WAR-INDUCING COMMENTS AHEAD

An interesting idea, but (at the risk of offending half of the registered SDMB users) the bedwetting liberals would never let it happen.

This is a society that won’t even allow people in excruciating pain from terminal diseases to end their own lives. Even if we could prove the astronauts in question would not have to die, I still feel there’s no way to make this happen. This is a pretty sticky topic, and has the potential to fall on some pretty elevated shoulders if a disaster should ensue. If the President okayed something like this, and it went awry…

I’m in the “never happen” category.

[pravnik]

Nothing to rally the flagging national spirits like a suicide mission dooming our astronauts to die a lonely and miserable death on a cold and distant planet. Go team!

[Rune]

Doesn’t have to be forever, or life, on Mars. Mitchiner (or however you spell it) in Space talked about a ten year period on the moon. Just till they got the technology worked out to be able to get them safely back home again. Ten year on Mars. Perhaps they can get some machinery going so they can extract or produce their own propellant so it wouldn’t have to be shipped from Earth. Anyway it’ll never happen.

[Metacom]

@Chastain86

POTENTIAL FLAME WAR-INDUCING COMMENTS AHEAD

An interesting idea, but (at the risk of offending half of the registered SDMB users) the bedwetting liberals would never let it happen.

This is a society that won’t even allow people in excruciating pain from terminal diseases to end their own lives.

Uh, the opposition to euthanasia is usually from the (Christian) right, not “bedwetting liberals.”

[sibyl]

If we are going to create a moon base this is pretty much whats gonna happen, no? That is, people will be sent to the moon for the rest of their lives. It only follows that if we setup a Mars base, the same will apply.

I can’t imagine there will be a huge outcry about this from the general public unless NASA totally botches up the PR and lets the media carry it towards the whole “suicide mission” angle instead of the “Mars base” angle.

I wonder how it would be perceived if the private sector sent someone up on a suicide mission to Mars or the moon (i.e. without NASA influence)?

And I strongly doubt anyone sent to Mars would be sent if they had any indications of a mindset that would let them regret never being on Earth again.

[SPOOFE]

Nothing to rally the flagging national spirits like a suicide mission dooming our astronauts to die a lonely and miserable death on a cold and distant planet.

It need not be lonely and miserable. Just let them bring a dog and a Playstation.

Uh, the opposition to euthanasia is usually from the (Christian) right, not “bedwetting liberals.”

Sometimes, it’s hard to tell the difference…

[AmbushBug]

I suppose one could define the goal as a one-way mission with people, followed by several more one-way missions with supplies: replacement food, oxygen, etc., followed by still more missions with better air recyclers and building materials, then there’s a Mars Base, and then more missions with rocket motors and fuel (or components to turn whatever they find on Mars to rocket motors and fuel), and then the original crew will have the option to rotate back - but likely won’t (since by then, the base would be completely livable, and a product of their toil, hearts, and souls, and why would they leave?) Naturally, this is a best-case scenario.

Further, if you assume a one-way mission with people, are you going to send up astronauts of mixed sex? And plan on dealing with children on Mars?

(on preview, I see I missed WinstonSmith’s post. so be it).

[Tremmie]

I don’t think the question is wether people would volunteer to go, they most definitely would, hell we have people who volunteer to be cannivalised. The question is should we ask people to go up there in the first place, and i believe the answer is an emphatic yes. Like the article says we already ask people to do dangerous things, colonization of other planets ranks much higher in the importance scale than say coal miner or fighter pilot.