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?-- GutPunchLullabies, Jul 23 2007 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=0403130Something like this... [ye_river_xiv, Jul 24 2007] Mars One http://mars-one.com/en/ [not_morrison_rm, Apr 17 2013] It would be even easier to send a dead man to Mars.-- ldischler, Jul 23 2007 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...-- GutPunchLullabies, Jul 23 2007 Just send a card and flowers? Or maybe just an email.-- normzone, Jul 23 2007 With a corpse, there's always the chance of resurrection.-- ldischler, Jul 23 2007 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)-- wagster, Jul 23 2007 I can think of quite a few people to send ...-- nuclear hobo, Jul 24 2007 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.-- ye_river_xiv, Jul 24 2007 Indeed, the question is mostly fuel... But return-trip fuel costs double, simply because you have to lift it out of TWO gravity wells.-- GutPunchLullabies, Jul 24 2007 Hmmm... That Kamikaze science one is basically the same idea, yes?-- GutPunchLullabies, Jul 24 2007 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.-- quantum_flux, Jul 24 2007 //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.-- ldischler, Jul 24 2007 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.-- bungston, Jul 24 2007 And billions more on the live phone-in lines to vote your least favourite Martian out the airlock.-- BunsenHoneydew, Jul 24 2007 Heh. And if only one were to come back, think of the savings!-- ldischler, Jul 24 2007 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.-- lurch, Jul 24 2007 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.-- GutPunchLullabies, Jul 24 2007 Oh MAN that's an awesome idea for a story.-- GutPunchLullabies, Jul 24 2007 //just getting there is less than half as difficult// [marked-for-tagline]-- imaginality, Jul 24 2007 Being planned, see Mars One.-- not_morrison_rm, Apr 17 2013 "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.-- DIYMatt, Apr 17 2013 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.-- whlanteigne, Apr 17 2013 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."-- MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 17 2013 "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 ... ."-- spidermother, Apr 17 2013 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.-- whlanteigne, Apr 18 2013 random, halfbakery