h a l f b a k e r ySee website for details.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Probably we will not see people on Mars in the near future. This is not optimal. The problem is that it is extremely hard to get there and back.
However, just getting there is less than half as difficult. I do not think that it would be impossible to find a crew for the One Way Ticket to Mars, especially
if there was even a slim chance we could eventually ship them the means to come home, probably after a few years.
Takers?
Kamikaze science
Kamikaze_20Science
[wagster, Jul 23 2007]
Dead Man Standing (on Mars)
Dead_20Man_20Standing_20(on_20Mars)
[ldischler, Jul 23 2007]
Mars, one way
http://www.redcolon.../art.php?id=0403130
Something like this... [ye_river_xiv, Jul 24 2007]
Mars One
http://mars-one.com/en/
[not_morrison_rm, Apr 17 2013]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
It would be even easier to send a dead man to Mars. |
|
| |
And easier yet to send a picture of one, and easier still to send kind thoughts towards Mars. |
|
| |
But this sort of thinking is really missing the point... |
|
| |
Just send a card and flowers? Or maybe just an email. |
|
| |
With a corpse, there's always the chance of resurrection. |
|
| |
Did this one before I'm afraid. I was surprised how controversial it turned out to be - I thought it was a bit of a no-brainer. (link) |
|
| |
I can think of quite a few people to send ... |
|
| |
This sort of discussion has been around for quite a while... However, I believe you are incorrect in your assumption that a one way mission is more than half as cheap as a two way mission. |
|
| |
Most of the mission cost is fuel... and equippment to hold, and properly use the fuel. |
|
| |
Earth has more mass, and therefore it requires more fuel to escape the earth's gravitational pull than it does to excape the gravitational pull of earth. |
|
| |
Earth also has a much thicker atmosphere, and therefore it takes less fuel to land on earth than to land on Mars, because a thicker atmosphere makes it easier to aerobrake, use parachutes, etc. |
|
| |
Robert Zubrin also points out that if you bring along hydrogen, you can use constituents in the Martian atmosphere to leverage your fuel load... This means that you can essentially reduce the fuel carrying weight by at least a factor of eight... If Mars has reasonable quantities of water that you can access, you wouldn't even need to bring the hydrogen. |
|
| |
Robert Zubrin also mentions the possibilities of one way missions to Mars in his 1995 seminal work "The Case for Mars," which is widely known to exist in the rarified turf of Mars-enthusiasts. I suggests you get a copy if you're interested in the topic. |
|
| |
Indeed, the question is mostly fuel... But return-trip fuel costs double, simply because you have to lift it out of TWO gravity wells. |
|
| |
Hmmm... That Kamikaze science one is basically the same idea, yes? |
|
| |
Well, the idea of human space flight is to complete the mission and bring people home alive. There's no need to have expendable human astronauts when robots, monkeys, birds, or insects could be trained to do the same thing. |
|
| |
//Well, the idea of human space flight is to complete the mission and bring people home alive.//
A better goal is to go to another planet and live there. The other thing is left over from John Kennedy's challenge. |
|
| |
I think it would be a huge downer for those on earth to watch the Marstronauts struggle over weeks and months and die one by one. Billions and billions would be spent sending them stuff to try to save them. |
|
| |
And billions more on the live phone-in lines to vote your least favourite Martian out the airlock. |
|
| |
Heh. And if only one were to come back, think of the savings! |
|
| |
I am imagining folk in 17th century England wondering if they would make it back safely from a trip to the American Colonies.
Some decided that wasn't the point. They are my ancestors. |
|
| |
Maybe they don't have to die one by one? They could use nuclear(or solar?) power to distill water and oxygen, and perhaps grow crops in their bubble habitat. |
|
| |
Sure, disaster (or failing that, old age) would eventually strike. But once thet got there, they could probably insulate themselves from the most EXTREME dangers, to some extent. |
|
| |
Heh. When the first baby accidentally gets born, THEN the billions will be spent on rescue. |
|
| |
Oh MAN that's an awesome idea for a story. |
|
| |
//just getting there is less than half as difficult// [marked-for-tagline] |
|
| |
Being planned, see Mars One. |
|
| |
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." |
|
| |
Or, you know, we could pick something easier. |
|
| |
One of the more credible Mars mission proposals
involves sending some automated devices first to
begin creating rocket fuel, many months in
advance. The actual manned vehicle wouldn't
begin its descent from orbit unless it has been
confirmed that sufficient fuel has been made for
the return trip. Other automated craft would set
up a long-term facility for the astronauts to live
and work in, also months in advance. |
|
| |
Less fuel would be needed for the return trip,
because Mars is a weaker gravity well, and the
return craft would be smaller, as it would not
include the Mars Lander or the exploration
vehicles. |
|
| |
I always thought the bit that says "and do the other
things" was a bit limp, as if he'd momentarily lost his
place on the page and had to extemporize. |
|
| |
A bit like "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall
fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in a few
other places, and we shall fight in the hills; we shall
never surrender." |
|
| |
"But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? ...
We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ... ." |
|
| |
Eisenhower set the course for the Space Program
and set up the Mercury project. It was a matter of
"taking the high ground" in the context of the Cold
War. Kennedy reinvigorated the Moon program and
spent the political capital to make it happen,
probably with the goal of winning the 1968
election for the Democratic Party. |
|
| |
Conservatives hate the success of the Apollo
program because it was promoted by a "Liberal"
President. Liberals hate it because it detracts from
social spending programs. |
|
| |
If both sides hate it, it must be a Good Thing. |
|
| |