Posted on 09/01/2009 5:50:01 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
The most challenging impediment to human travel to Mars does not seem to involve the complicated launching, propulsion, guidance or landing technologies but something far more mundane: the radiation emanating from the Sun’s cosmic rays. The shielding necessary to ensure the astronauts do not get a lethal dose of solar radiation on a round trip to Mars may very well make the spacecraft so heavy that the amount of fuel needed becomes prohibitive.
There is, however, a way to surmount this problem while reducing the cost and technical requirements, but it demands that we ask this vexing question: Why are we so interested in bringing the Mars astronauts home again?
While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return is jarring upon first hearing, the rationale for one-way trips into space has both historical and practical roots. Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway. Give us a century or two and we may turn the whole planet into a place from which many people might be happy to depart.
Moreover, one of the reasons that is sometimes given for sending humans into space is that we need to move beyond Earth if we are to improve our species’ chances of survival should something terrible happen back home. This requires people to leave, and stay away.
There are more immediate and pragmatic reasons to consider one-way human space exploration missions.
First, money. Much of the cost of a voyage to Mars will be spent on coming home again. If the fuel for the return is carried on the ship, this greatly increases the mass of the ship, which in turn requires even more fuel.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Does Lawrence Krauss or anyone else at the NYT volunteer for a one-way trip to Mars?
If this isn't satire this guy belongs in a mental institution. Call me a loon right winger but I believe any astronauts we send up we should try our best to bring them back. I guess this guy also believes we should just order people to go, whether they want to or not. Let's put him on the first rocket out, should be interesting to hear him screaming over the radio as the ship heads out for it's one way trip to destiny./SAR
I tell you what, the left shows their true colors daily since the Bozo was elected.
There are guys that would do it, no question. Whether it was Cortez, Hillary, or Armstrong, these guys all knew there was a good chance of not returning alive. It’s a small step to ask for volunteers to commit to the expansion of humanity to the starts and, in my opinion, an inevitable one. I know that there were times in my life I would have volunteered.
Not to mention that their departure wasn't paid for with taxpayer dollars.
I don’t have a problem with this article at all. I’m sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to be the first on Mars, even if it’s a one-way trip.
From the article:
“If it sounds unrealistic to suggest that astronauts would be willing to leave home never to return alive, then consider the results of several informal surveys I and several colleagues have conducted recently. One of my peers in Arizona recently accompanied a group of scientists and engineers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on a geological field trip. During the day, he asked how many would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space. Every member of the group raised his hand. The lure of space travel remains intoxicating for a generation brought up on “Star Trek” and “Star Wars.”
We might want to restrict the voyage to older astronauts, whose longevity is limited in any case. Here again, I have found a significant fraction of scientists older than 65 who would be willing to live out their remaining years on the red planet or elsewhere. With older scientists, there would be additional health complications, to be sure, but the necessary medical personnel and equipment would still probably be cheaper than designing a return mission.
Delivering food and supplies to these new pioneers — along with the tools to grow and build whatever they need, for however long they live on the red planet — is likewise more reasonable and may be less expensive than designing a ticket home. Certainly, as in the Zubrin proposal, unmanned spacecraft could provide the crucial supply lines.”
It is not unrealistic.
And, with a tongue in cheek: can solve the boomer problem.
As you read the following selected quotes from the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967, you should ask whether you, as an investor, would place the extremely high risk portion of you portfolio in a venture where there is no private property, where there is no privacy and where disputes are resolved by the U.N.:
Article I
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation. Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
* * *
Article XI
In order to promote international co-operation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, States Parties to the Treaty conducting activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities. On receiving the said information, the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be prepared to disseminate it immediately and effectively.
Article XII
All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treatyon a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited.
Article XVI
Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.
The solution for stimulating a stagnating reach for the stars should be obvious to our policy makers. Massive expenditures by central governments may be the right formula for proving that great feats of exploration can bear fruit. However, for sustained activity in undeveloped expanses to take root, entrepreneurs need free access to capital. This includes private property and ownership of land. Without it, the Massachusetts Bay Colony would been nothing more than a historical footnote and Thanksgiving would have no meaning to Americans.
The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967 is toxic to the exploration and economic development in the heavens. An amendment to include grants of celestial private property or an outright treaty withdrawal will be the first step toward equipping American entrepreneurs with the tools they need to reach for the stars.
Actually, I’ve seen several concepts for a one-way and pseudo-one-way Mars Mission.
Several generate the return fuel ON Mars. . .
And, hey, use a NUCLEAR rocket system, and all you need is reaction mass. . .
“If this isn’t satire this guy belongs in a mental institution.”
Well since he works for the New York Times, your statement is kind of redundant!
:)
“Suppose you were in a Mental Institution. Then suppose you worked for the New York Times. But I repeat myself”. - Mark Twain sort of.....
;0)
I hope that they do - and the sooner the better.
P.S. Suficient shileding can be made from regolith. Escape velocity from the moon is 2.38 km/sec, compared to 11.2 km/sec for the earth, a 1:5 ratio, not counting all the soupy atmosphere the escape vehicle must push through.
I’ll have terminator armor, a chainfist in one hand and a storm bolter in the other. You want to see what the second amendment looks like in outer space?
Liberals do not value life, therefore they consider human beings nothing more than a budget line item. Yet they claim that there will be no rationing of health care procedures as a measure of cost savings.
They can not connect their own dots in their own minds, yet it is apparent to any thinking human being.
Have you considered that Mars is, and probably will always remain, uninhabitable? Why should we send men to their deaths to explore a dead rock when we can much more easily send robots to do the job?
If scientists ever find a planet similar to Earth out there, then maybe we should consider manned missions and colonization. But until that time, what is the point? We’d probably have a much easier and less expensive venture if we tried to colonize Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean.
Only if the first asstronaughts sent are the democrats in congress.
Every place inhabitable....until you make it habitable. We will provide by artificial needs what nature provides...well...naturally! With enough energy, you can do absolutely anything.
Perhaps not, but they have volunteered for a one-way trip on the SS [Socialist Ship] Obama.
......and man will never break the sound barrier.
Too much stagnant thinking in this world now........it is why socialism is coming back, laziness.
Personally I think the first permenant habitation of mars would be underground with food grown in greenhouses on the surface.
I think you are right,but I fear it will be a long time before we attempt it.I truly believe that the gov'ts of this world are about control and they have learned the American lesson on colonies.
Once a colony is self sufficient, they become a rival, can you imagine what humans will do once outside of the gravity well and the solar system is their frontier?
We should be out there our survival depends upon it, world gov't will never do it they would rather control a sewer than inspire a greatness.
Self sufficiency is the enemy of government. I read a sci fi story as a kid that was about a rebellion against earth. The rebels were (rightfully) portrayed as the heroes.
They were in it for the money!
Your analogy is a bit simplistic. Breaking the sound barrier was a relatively simple engineering problem compared to creating a sustainable colony on a dead planet. Even if we could manage to do it, where is the benefit to mankind? Are there some resources we have discovered on Mars that are so valuable to justify the expense? If we’re simply talking about living space, how many people would really rather live trapped in a glass bubble on Mars than on Earth?
Well it is simplistic, to those of us who have grown up with the barrier broken.( Heck, I have broken it myself )
That really is my point, we can achieve anything but we must apply ourselves,then it becomes common place.
I don't know what lies on Mars but I do know that we can not be a one planet civilization and continue.......I just know that in my heart.
Sure, humans might some day be able to figure out how to do it, but is it really worth it the expense and trouble? What have we discovered, in all our years of exploring the solar system, that would justify any further expenditure to attempt colonization? Even if we discovered a mountain of gold or a lake of oil on Mars, the expense to transport it back to Earth would be astronomical, so the relative value of the resource would be negligible.
I think a lot of people look to space simply because they long for the romance of exploration, something we’ve for the most part lost, since we have explored most of the nooks and crannies here on Earth. It may be a noble sentiment, but I really think we need to temper it with reality. Anywhere on Earth, we might have had a tough time getting there, but once we were there, we knew we could probably find a way to live there. Outer space is different, everywhere we have looked, it’s completely and utterly sterile and lifeless, and I think for good reason.
In my opinion, it never was a question of whether it is “worth it”, but rather the certitude of the inevitable, the immutable, a certain eventuality. The moon itself was nothing more than a barren rock to our fledgling eyes, yet we went there, whatever the circumstances that produced it.
Based on the fact they have no idea if intelligent life populates our universe the UN has absolutely no authority over anything outside this planet, and just suggesting they do is the pinnacle of dark age arrogance and self importance.
I understand your point........but I also know we have never been better than when we had a frontier, it is when we blossom.
No, they left for places like America for the opportunity to create a better life.
It probably is inevitable... that the government will continue to flush taxpayer money down the drain on these schemes. I just wish that some corporation or multi-billionaire would finance these fantasies themselves and spare the rest of us from having to foot the bill.
One-way missions are a little silly at this point IMHO. Why not build orbiting facilities around the Earth and the Moon from which a regular, lower-cost mission could be dispatched to orbit Mars and return so we could actually, uh, see what we're getting our astronauts into? Drop probes. Study the place. Find the good spots. Determine exactly what a human landing will need to take with it and what the planet can provide. If it looks good, land. Settle. Colonize - oh, that's bad word these days.
Otherwise, why bother? For "knowledge"? Knowledge of what? I'll spend money for a look in the box but I'm not going to spend lives on it. Before explorers took off for the new world they actually had ports to take off from and presumably return to. We don't.
"Get your ass to Mars."
There are different interpretations of space law. For example, does the United States own the rocks we brought back from the Moon? I have not noticed any other nation demanding joint ownership of the samples.
If we went to Mars and started mining diamonds, would the UN be able to send their armed star cruisers out to stop us?
As for me, I WOULD VOLUNTEER for a one way space mission to advance humanity’s exploration and colonization of the new frontier.
Once we get free of this gravity well and Earth’s oppressive governments then true freedom and capitalism can flourish using the unlimited resources of the Solar System.
Don't take my word for it read the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
There is no private property outside of the Earth, all extraterrestrial activites need to be reported to the U.N. and all extraterrestrial facilities must be open to other signatiories. The only thing you can own is the vessel launched from earth. It is the law that governs all U.S. citizens.
Certainly, such a speculative venture would be a poor allocation of public resources. However, just as it was with European exploration, speculative ventures match well with venture capital.
But with the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967" in place, there will never be privately funded exploration of space.
It will never happen until we as a nation withdraw from the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967.
Because nobody can own the station that you fabricate out of extraterrestrial materials. There will never be venture capital put into such a venture. Nobody will ever "Find the good spots" because we have agreed to socialism in all extraterrestrial areas.
As long as there is any interpretation that anything you put into space must be open to all signatories and that anything you mine, build or fabricate in space is res communis, then the private capital need to explore and ultimately profit will never be put toward extraterrestrial activities. To invest in an extraterrestrial vebnture as it is now would be like investing in a venture that seeks to own a part of the ocean.
Once again, based on the fact they have no idea if intelligent life populates our universe the UN has absolutely no authority over anything outside this planet, and just suggesting they do is the pinnacle of dark age arrogance and self importance.
Thing is, though - that sort of technology is slowly becoming available to smaller and smaller enterprises, and when somebody in a little aerospace company in Podunk finally decides to hell with the UN, who's going to stop him?
Is that you, Anymouse?
Then explain it to me - who resolves disputed claims of a treaty violation? What law applies, the doctrine of hostis humani generis?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.