Actually, you don’t. An automated chemical factory can easily manufacture propellant out of the resources available on Mars. All you need is what it takes to get there.
Re the OP, conceptually, there’s no difference between what is described here and the eventual colonization mission, except for the fact that as currently contemplated the colonization mission will be preceded by exploratory missions. There’s no technological reason the first mission to Mars couldn’t be the colonization mission, really; it’s largely psychological. There is, however, some technical value in putting boots on the ground and verifying that you can burrow down thirty feet to escape background cosmic rays (note to BobLibDem: there’s a lot of harmful radiation in the universe at large; it isn’t just solar) without risking a permafrost collapse or something like that. On the other hand, the risk of having somebody in space for twice the duration of transit time would be lessened by cutting that in half.
It’s an interesting question. Realistically, I don’t think it’s possible, but if we do in fact establish a moon base and make some technical breakthroughs (and robot missions tell us what we need to know about water availability and soil structure and so on), it may indeed be possible to go to Mars to stay, first time out. I still think we’d balk for emotional reasons, but it’s worth thinking about.
The only way a one-way mission would be appropriate would be if it was urgent we got to Mars. But when it’s just that it makes it easier so we can get there sooner, then it doesn’t make sense. Why not wait until the technology has advanced to a state where you can get people there and back.
Because, as has already been pointed out, there’s no real necessity to bring the people back. For every round trip, you can have two one-way trips with permanent settlers. 'Course, each individual trip would require a larger influx of supplies, but eventually - over the course of many decades, and many, many flights - you’d have an almost self-sufficient colony.
But there’s also no real necessity to send people to Mars without a plan to get them back. What’s the hurry? So that we can say, “Oooh, we went to Mars,” a few years sooner?
From a pure scientific standpoint, robotics is the way to go. Note that exploration of other planets than Mars is even more likely to require robotics, and what we learn from robotics on Mars would be partly transferable to even harsher planets.
However, the main value I see in going to Mars is making us a two planet species. This is IMHO essential due to the possibility of Earthlings either dying out/killing ourselves or (more likely) falling into Churchill’s “new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” So colonization is the goal. But colonization is unrealistic until there is a permanent robotic presence on Mars with power plants, tunnels, and the like. Put a major permanent robotic presence on Mars, and it won’t be at all suicidal for the first human arrivals to come on one-way tickets.
I would put it to you eager volunteers to sit in your house or appartment for one year without external radio or television (you can keep your VCR and books). Any food you eat must be ordered out. Maybe you can make one phone call a day. I can’t conceive of even the most die-hard loner being able to live like that for more than a few weeks.
And what’s the point of putting a man on Mars if we can’t get him back? Do we really need to create a probe with a 200 lb biological component?
I just don’t see any of this happening any time soon. The little rovers and orbiters cost NASA half a million dollars or more each. The cost for sending repeated, larger missions with human passengers and setting up bases and creating the technology to allow those bases to be sustainable seems to be way more than even the most conservative NASA budget can sustain.
A single accident, even someone getting sick up there, would probably sour the public on the whole idea. This is all a “cool, space” thing to the general public. When it becomes a “risk the lives of astronauts to collect rcoks” thing again (and it will), it’ll be pulled just like all the moon plans we had earlier this century. Unfortunately, that will be long past when the political benefits of these current plans have been used. Viva la sheep.
It’s not a suicide mission: It’s a Frontier. We’re not sending people to die, we’re sending them to inhabit a new world. Big, big difference. The original settlers to the new world were on one-way missions too.
Of course it’s risky. All spaceflight is. But it’s possible. Look, if we send them there to return, they still have to sit on Mars for a year or so. So instead of coming back after a year, they get fresh provisions and hardware they need to expand and thrive.
I could see this as a pretty cool thing. Think of it this way: The people that volunteered would be BIG stars. They’d be on all the talk shows, they’d be writing books, we’d know them all by name. The first pioneers of a new world! And when they moved to Mars, we’d follow their day to day lives intensely, at least for quite some time. Think “Survivor: Mars”. Seriously. This could really pump up support for spending real money to send new supplies there, and even more colonists. When you add the thrill of living on another planet with the opportunity for the kind of fame and glory these people would have, you’d have thousands of volunteers.
And it might not even be a one-way trip - just an indefinite one. After ten years of supplies and a thriving habitat, we’d possibly build crew return missions to ferry them back. But there would be no guarantee.
The main risk is that everyone would get to know these people before they left - and then they’d die. Die en route, crash and die trying to land, or worse yet set up their habitat, have something critical fail, and die slowly on nationwide TV.
I doubt that they would be able to stand earth gravity after ten years. That sounds more like the kind of problem that would be solved in time for their great-grandchildren to visit the home planet, assuming it was then still safe to visit from radiation/environmental/political standpoints.
What I can’t understand is how they would die from something critical failing on Mars. There just has to be enough redundant infrastructure put up there first (small power plants, machine tools, maybe a miniturized semi-conductor fab and a facility to synthesize chemicals/drugs) so that whatever broke could be fixed. The real danger is a round-trip mission – then they could get stuck on Mars due to a technical failure and not be self-supporting in food and power.
To me, having a permanently expanding robotic Mars presence for a decade or two is just as exciting as getting people on Mars earlier. Although this sounds hokey, I can even imagine, in twenty years, allowing high school classes on earth to drive Mars rovers. Remember, each unmanned mission costs the same as a shuttle launch. And since we won’t have to worry much about safety during the robotic phase, costs should go down with each launch.
Round trip would be a good plan for a almost-dictatorship like Putin’s Russia, where the government wants to continually keep control. We in the US should be confident enough to trust those we send to make their own future.
Internet latency would be bad, but other than that, high-speed. Should be perfect for this board – although they would probably have so much to do expanding their infrastucture as to not be here very often.
A longterm mission to Mars is so much better than a one way mission to Mars. I think the quality of the science being done by the poor radiation scarred madmen will begin to suffer after about 10 years. Well, could be 10 days once they realize how bleak being the first people on Mars really is. I think that the first mission should focus on building some kind of habitat on the surface and develop methods to produce oxygen, water, and grow food. To stay there for an extended period that’s essential.
The follow on mission should probably be launced soon after the first mission is on the surface. I hope all they forget is shampoo, but you never know.
Rotating in new crews to replace the old ones, bringing in the latest robots and technology, and trying to do something about emergencies would be better than just letting people deteriorate on Mars.
[aside] I’m pretty sure the red clover that grows in the cracks of my driveway would grow on Mars. You know, for oxygen… [/aside]
In a nutshell, I think building underground on Mars would not only help alleviate the radiation problem to an extent, but might also be necessary because of the weather* and dust storms.
Sending people to Mars for a few years, with proper precautions taken, seems possible in my very non-expert opinion.
*Mars Global Surveyor data. No longer reporting daily, bummer. (It gets very windy and really cold)
