|
|
|
|
|
|
by bobdvb
4712 days ago
|
|
|
My view is that if we are going to have a Mars manned mission it should be one-way. Send some resources to the planet, automated mechanisms to build out some basic infrastructure (cabins, greenhouses, barricades, etc). Then once things are in place, and a self-sustaining environment can be built find some people willing to spend the rest of their lives there, perhaps older people but families wouldn't be impossible. Think of a pioneer spirit, there would be no end of people willing to put their name down for a one way trip! The main reason I say one way? Given it is an 21 month minimum round trip or even five years, the health (mostly bone density) issues are astounding. So, let the people decide to be the first Martian colonists and let it be a one way trip. If the preparation package was sufficient I know I would like to put my name down but I suspect that my wife wouldn't, so that vetoes me, but I know I am not alone. Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that that worries those in charge. But lets remember that these trips aren't without risk, so lets say that the risk is better managed if they just stay on Mars. |
|
|
Total colony failure is a real danger for Mars colonization, as it was for historical settlers. If our first Mars colony is a total loss, you can bet there won't be another one. If Martian settlers had space faring capabilities they could avert this scenario and potentially even return to Earth if things got out of control.
Establishing back-and-forth routes, both slow robotic ones, as well as the occasional human shuttle, means Mars will be a real extension of Earth instead of a stagnant, extreme colony. It means there will be pressure for technological advancement in this area which wouldn't be necessary if we had just a big one-way rocket. Without this pressure, spaceship design and propulsion won't get a significant boost.
If we choose to put this one-way barrier up, let's not kid ourselves, it will be because it's dramatic and romantic. In the short term, this decision will put human lives in danger. It will stifle innovation by willfully ignoring a big tech application. Over the long term, if the colony survives, it will lead to a technologically superior Mars that has no meaningful ties to Earth - and with that, potentially, war.
Having a two-way system in place will most likely finally commoditize space travel and in one fell swoop will eliminate all the problems I talked about.
> Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that that worries those in charge.
Humans will die "in space" anyway. If we choose to venture out into the solar system, people are going to die out there. As I said, a one-way transport system combined with a loss of the first colony will result in a lot of deaths and it will result in a total cancellation of any further colonization efforts.
Making transports one-way is a choice, not a necessity. I would argue it's an illogical one with very impractical consequences.