FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Scientists Propose One-Way Trip To Mars





jwellsy
This blows my mind. Who would volunteer or be selected for such a trip?

Quote:
Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press
Mon Nov 15, 7:06 pm ET



PULLMAN, Wash. – It's usually cheaper to fly one way, even to Mars.

Two scientists are suggesting that colonization of the red planet could happen faster and more economically if astronauts behaved like the first settlers to come to North America — not expecting to go home.

"The main point is to get Mars exploration moving," said Dirk Schulze-Makuch, a Washington State University professor who co-authored an article that seriously proposes what sounds like a preposterous idea.

At least one moon-walking astronaut was not impressed.

"This is premature," Ed Mitchell of Apollo 14 wrote in an e-mail. "We aren't ready for this yet."

Also cool to the idea was NASA. President Barack Obama has already outlined a plan to go to Mars by the mid-2030s, but he never suggested these space travelers wouldn't come home.

"We want our people back," NASA spokesman Michael Braukus said.

The article titled "To Boldly Go" appears in the latest issue of the Journal of Cosmology, which featured more than 50 articles and essays on Mars exploration.

Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies, a physicist at Arizona State University, argue that humans must begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against a catastrophe on Earth. They believe the one-way trips could start in two decades.

"You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that," Schulze-Makuch said, bringing to mind the aging heroes who saved the day in the movie "Space Cowboys."

That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. Radiation could also damage reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea, Schulze-Makuch said.

Mars is a six-month flight away, and it has surface gravity, a thin atmosphere, frozen water, carbon dioxide and essential minerals. The two scientists propose the missions begin with two two-person teams, in separate ships that would serve as living quarters on the planet. More colonists and regular supply ships would follow.

The technology already exists, or is within easy reach, they wrote. By not taking the extra fuel and provisions necessary for a return trip to Earth, the mission could cut costs by 80 percent.

Davies and Schulze-Makuch say it's important to realize they're not proposing a "suicide mission."

"The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony," they wrote.

They acknowledge the proposal is a tough sell for NASA, with its focus on safety, and suggest the private sector might be more fertile ground.

"What we would need is an eccentric billionaire," Schulze-Makuch said. "There are people who have the money to put this into reality."

Indeed, British tycoon Richard Branson, PayPal founder Elon Musk and Amazon.com Inc. CEO Jeff Bezos are among the rich who are already involved in private space ventures.

Isolated humans in space have long been a staple of science fiction movies, from "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" to a flurry of recent movies such as "Solaris" and "Moon." In many of the plots, lonely astronauts fall victim to computers, madness or aliens.

Psychological profiling and training of the astronauts, plus constant communication with Earth, would reduce debilitating mental strains, the two scientists said.

"They would, in fact, feel more connected to home than the early Antarctic explorers," they write in their article.

The mental health of humans in space has been extensively studied. Depression can set in, people become irritated with each other, and sleep can be disrupted, studies have found. The knowledge that there is no quick return to Earth would likely make that worse.

Davies' research focuses on cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology. He was an early proponent of the theory that life on Earth may have come from Mars in rocks ejected by asteroid and comet impacts.

Schulze-Makuch is the author of two books about life on other planets. His focus is eco-hydrogeology, which includes the study of water on planets and moons of our solar system and how those could serve as a potential habitat for microbial life.

Both men contend that Mars has abundant resources to help the colonists become self-sufficient over time. They write that the colony should be next to a large ice cave, to provide shelter from radiation, plus water and oxygen.

Despite the lack of enthusiasm from NASA, Schulze-Makuch believes many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.

He and Davies believe a Mars base would offer humanity a "lifeboat" if Earth became uninhabitable.

"We are on a vulnerable planet," Schulze-Makuch said. "Asteroid impact can threaten us, or a supernova explosion. If we want to survive as a species, we have to expand into the solar system and likely beyond."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_one_way_to_mars
SonLight
I don't think anyone would or should be allowed to go to Mars with the understanding that it's a one-way trip. On the other hand, if we prepare the way with unmanned missions doing mining and other prep work, it might be possible that by the time the first mission goes some of the crew would have the choice to remain for an extra two years or so.

Until sophisticated medical facilities and other comforts are provided, so it becomes feasible for young couples to consider going there and having children, any talk of "colonization" is nonsense. That might happen within twenty years or so of the first manned landing if it is made a priority of the program. It would indeed be an expensive priority.

Even when a couple went there with the intent to stay, they should have the option to return if they decide to. Unplanned return flights should take priority over scientific materials being returned, and the ticket should always be paid before the person leaves Earth. When conditions on Mars are good enough that people do voluntarily stay in large numbers, then we can claim it as human territory.
deanhills
I think all one would have to do is ask for volunteers, and I'm almost certain there would be many applicants. For a variety of reasons. There may be those who are eccentric, or would just love to have the experience of a planet, even if they have to die for it. I won't be one of the applicants as I'm very happy with the planet I'm on. Smile
Magicman
I know this is something I would never want to do but if there is someone out there that thinks they could live by themselves on another planet and truly wants to do it, then they would become very famous. However, if there is someone smart enough to live alone on a foreign planet, then we would probably want their intelligence here on earth. I definitely think exploration of Mars can be done without sacrificing someone.
ocalhoun
Hmm... I think a return-trip rocket would weigh less than a long-term, fully self-sufficient settlement...

So, the only way this would be faster would be to send some robots ahead with minimal supplies, and instruct them to build a settlement using local materials.

This would require some significant advances in robotics; the ones we can get to Mars now can barely move around, explore, and collect small surface samples without getting disabled. They'll need quite a bit of improvement before they can do that, and in addition do heavy mining, refining, and construction.
coolclay
While on the face of it it sounds like a terrible idea, if you phrase it as a suicide mission. But when you really analyze things this isn't a bad deal. I mean in reality look how we treat people here on Earth, there's thousands if not millions of older people that sit at home watching tv all day, their families never visit (if they even have families). If I had the opportunity as an older person, and fit the most definitely strict qualifications I would certainly sign up. The opportunity to start something so significant, and be the beginning of what could be the future, why not, whats the worst that could happen, death? We all die someday anyway, most of us in a hospital bed with plugs all over our bodies, needles in our arms, and pipes down our throats, no thanks, I'd rather die doing something I love or forging a new frontier.

And I guarantee you I am not the only one......
coolclay
Not that it matters but wouldn't this be more appropriate in the Universe forum too?
standready
Sign me up. I am ready to go! For some reason, Scotty has not beamed me up so I might as well head for another planet. Hey ocalhoun, I borrow your extended stay hiking/survival gear for the trip?
deanhills
standready wrote:
Sign me up. I am ready to go! For some reason, Scotty has not beamed me up so I might as well head for another planet. Hey ocalhoun, I borrow your extended stay hiking/survival gear for the trip?
Guess you would be needing different gear for this trip? A parachute, a space suit, a space ship, etc. etc.? Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
standready wrote:
Sign me up. I am ready to go! For some reason, Scotty has not beamed me up so I might as well head for another planet. Hey ocalhoun, I borrow your extended stay hiking/survival gear for the trip?
Guess you would be needing different gear for this trip? A parachute, a space suit, a space ship, etc. etc.? Smile

Some oxygen, perhaps? ^.^
standready
deanhills wrote:
standready wrote:
Sign me up. I am ready to go! For some reason, Scotty has not beamed me up so I might as well head for another planet. Hey ocalhoun, I borrow your extended stay hiking/survival gear for the trip?
Guess you would be needing different gear for this trip? A parachute, a space suit, a space ship, etc. etc.? Smile

Nope. Too much weight to carry even with reduced gravity! laugh

[quote="ocalhoun']Some oxygen, perhaps? ^.^[/quote]
Hmmm, perhaps! Or I could just hold my breath for a few years until support crew arrived!
_AVG_
I think such a trip is too dangerous for any living being, it is not worth the risk.

First of all, they would need so much oxygen (you simply couldn't store that much!) - unless of course they invent some sort of device that converts the Martian atmosphere to oxygen.

Secondly, they would need practically an unlimited supply of food! An unlimited supply of energy as well! And as far as the communication is concerned, I think I had read somewhere that a person having a phone call from Mars to Earth would need to wait ten minutes for the other person to respond (it takes that much time for waves to travel back and forth!) - I get irritated enough with the lag of 10 seconds on Skype!

It's a nonsensical idea to say the least, in my opinion at least.
LittleBlackKitten
Quote:
"What we would need is an eccentric billionaire," Schulze-Makuch said.


SEND BILL GATES! Lol...
goldennick
I think we are not yet prepared for such a journey. And there is not sure that rocket will land on Mars.
Anyway, I think that we didn't land on moon yet Smile - there was a Holywood movie.
Navigator
I can think of some politicians that I would be glad to contribute to their one-way ticket.
deanhills
Navigator wrote:
I can think of some politicians that I would be glad to contribute to their one-way ticket.
Laughing Agreed. Like the ultimate retirement package?
ocalhoun
Navigator wrote:
I can think of some politicians that I would be glad to contribute to their one-way ticket.

Along with some hairdressers, telephone sanitizers, and toothpaste photographers?

(Surely somebody will get the reference...)
Navigator
ocalhoun wrote:
Navigator wrote:
I can think of some politicians that I would be glad to contribute to their one-way ticket.

Along with some hairdressers, telephone sanitizers, and toothpaste photographers?

(Surely somebody will get the reference...)


Ha, LOL.
Dennise
This will indeed happen - it's only a matter of time! Here are a few reasons why:

1. When our sun begins to exhaust
2. When our resources have been depleted
3. Nuclear, biological or some other cataclysmic Armageddon
4. Mans natural desire to explore
5. Altruist's who would go to save mankind

Other reasons?

a. It might depend on who'd be going with you?
b. ?
c. ?
d. ?
noobcake
ocalhoun, wouldn't they be heading for the wrong planet?

Anyway, I don't think this is such a bad idea. Lots of explorers in the past hoped to go back but they never were sure. I don't see why they won't be going back home here too if they wanted to, maybe on the first round-trip that Earth decides to send (maybe 10 or 20 years after they arrive). A permanent base in Mars would greatly facilitate round trips anyway, since the next flight to Mars wouldn't require a portable base anymore.
domz
well, one way or another, they oughta send somebody there anyway. If it is a suicide mission, then be it. Our overpopulated human race needs some volunteers to sacrifice their lives for the sake of finding ways to preserve our species.
ocalhoun
domz wrote:
Our overpopulated human race needs some volunteers to sacrifice their lives for the sake of finding ways to preserve our species.

Probably true, but I doubt you'll get many volunteers for that.
Lots of people think other people should sacrifice themselves for the greater good... but few people think that they should sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
Dennise wrote:

1. When our sun begins to exhaust
2. When our resources have been depleted
3. Nuclear, biological or some other cataclysmic Armageddon
4. Mans natural desire to explore
5. Altruist's who would go to save mankind

1. When it begins to exhaust, it will go red-giant, and roast Mars to a crisp, if it doesn't swallow Mars entirely. At any rate, I hope we manage to get to more planets within a few billion years... it only took a few thousand to get from pyramids to moon landings, after all.
2. When our resources have been depleted, what resources will we use to build spaceships with?
3. When Armageddon happens, there probably won't be enough warning to evacuate the planet.
4. Okay, this one might work.
5. It will probably take more than just getting there to save mankind. You have to transport billions of people there... and that will still only solve the population problem temporarily. (Added to the possible difficulty of finding relocation volunteers.)
Dennise
It would be the greatest social experiment of all times - and with an unpredictable outcome - but the venture would have precedence as has been mentioned.
SonLight
ocalhoun wrote:

5. It will probably take more than just getting there to save mankind. You have to transport billions of people there... and that will still only solve the population problem temporarily. (Added to the possible difficulty of finding relocation volunteers.)


Save the race from what?

If your goal is to prevent the extinction of humanity, getting a few hundred people to Mars and setting up a viable economy there would do the job. This is _not_ an easy task, mind you. It would probably cost many billions of dollars to set up a living environment capable of being extended in scope and providing all mining and recycling functions so the colony could be self-sufficient.

If the goal is to ease Earth's overpopulation, it cannot be done. Mars is a harsh environment. Sending a large number of people to live there would be worse than sending them to the Sahara desert or to Antarctica. Mars might one day support as many as one hundred million people, but only by setting up a small colony and gradually expanding mining and recycling operations to support more.

If we want to have an Earth-sized population on another planet someday, we will have to find an uninhabited Earth-like planet to colonize. The nearest one is probably a few hundred light years from here.
ocalhoun
SonLight wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

5. It will probably take more than just getting there to save mankind. You have to transport billions of people there... and that will still only solve the population problem temporarily. (Added to the possible difficulty of finding relocation volunteers.)


Save the race from what?

If your goal is to prevent the extinction of humanity, getting a few hundred people to Mars and setting up a viable economy there would do the job. This is _not_ an easy task, mind you. It would probably cost many billions of dollars to set up a living environment capable of being extended in scope and providing all mining and recycling functions so the colony could be self-sufficient.

Ah, perhaps I mistakenly assumed that overpopulation was the fate that the species needed saving from. -- And I proceeded to point out the difficulty of that.
(Personally, I'd say that population control measures on Earth would be the best bet, and if that's not enough, space stations in Earth orbit.)

For providing a 'designated survivors' colony, I suspect you'd need more than just a few hundred to prevent inbreeding, but yes, that would do okay with a few thousand probably, no need for billions.
portoskt
if they ask for volounteers, ill go )
D'Artagnan
if the life suport technology were just right and we had enought knowledge to safelly assume we woudl get the and be able to live there for our lives,

I'd go.


right now it's just high tech suicide

but if i could live outside earth i would completelly go for it
D'Artagnan
Dennise wrote:
This will indeed happen - it's only a matter of time! Here are a few reasons why:

1. When our sun begins to exhaust
2. When our resources have been depleted
3. Nuclear, biological or some other cataclysmic Armageddon
4. Mans natural desire to explore
5. Altruist's who would go to save mankind

Other reasons?

a. It might depend on who'd be going with you?
b. ?
c. ?
d. ?


probably we will all be extinct way before any of those problems happen.... pessimist me?
rajpk
it will be fun one way trip
and
end of life trip:)
many persons wants to do that
but i am not available for it
MrTylerGreen
I think that a one way trip is an awesome idea. That kind of adventurous bravery is what founded our country. I think a lot of people would want to sign up for a one way trip to Mars, even if it meant they might die. The fact is though, that if they don't die and they do start to make a colony on mars it would be a great achievement. And even if they do die, they would still be heroes for trying such a thing, and the knowledge they could transmit back to earth would be invaluable.
SonLight
MrTylerGreen wrote:
I think that a one way trip is an awesome idea. That kind of adventurous bravery is what founded our country. I think a lot of people would want to sign up for a one way trip to Mars, even if it meant they might die. The fact is though, that if they don't die and they do start to make a colony on mars it would be a great achievement. And even if they do die, they would still be heroes for trying such a thing, and the knowledge they could transmit back to earth would be invaluable.


I think it would be immoral to send anyone without at least the possibility of return. Suppose it happened though, that some people were landed there with enough resources to survive for a number of years. They could prepare for a self-sustaining colony, and possibly even get some materials that were valuable enough to ship back to Earth.

I would think that unmanned freight trips to resupply them would be essential; perhaps they would occur on an emergency basis in order to overcome unplanned obstacles that would otherwise prove fatal to the colonists. If unmanned flights occurred, and the colonists could mine and process material for rocket fuel, surely there would be an opportunity one or more to return with modest extra expense.

It appears that manned space flight is not a priority for the United States now. That might postpone the chance to consider manned trips to Mars for a few decades, but it is more likely that another country will step forward and take our place as a leader in manned spaceflight.
boinsterman
It might be a little early for long-term residence, because of the dangers. However, a large group with all the specialists and supplies and equipment needed would include the following capabilities:

Medical care
Food (hydroponics)
Adequate radiation shielding for both facilities and personnel
Evacuation rockets (in case of emergency)
Oxygen (Mars has very little atmosphere/oxygen)
Exercise (Mars low gravity will result


The technology or cost-effectiveness may be another factor. I am not qualified to comment. However, given the cost of landing there and taking off, I think living in orbit around the Earth much more reasonable.
ujjwalshrestha
sounds like suicide
xcustomtoys
maybe because there is facebook in mars that's why he is confident haha!
menino
It might be called a suicide mission because there are many risks involved, but I'm sure that it will still appeal to many who have wanted to explore space and try something new.

I'm also sure that return from mars will be possible but probably not very soon.

The idea of going to mars, is to explore new possibilities and new environments, and it will definitely be a challenge; and will pave the way for a lot of new innovations, like space travel / exploration etc.

I think if given the opportunity, I might consider it, as long as I don't have to pay for it. Laughing
Josso
On this note has anyone been watching the VODO series "Pioneer One"?
mk12327
I think the idea of a one-way trip is not necessarily a bad idea. Like some has suggested, there will definitely be volunteers who are willing to embark on this trip. However, I prefer to agree with ocalhoun that they first send a team of robots to set up base and only send in humans for long-term stay when the entire project had matured.

Indeed, to maintain a long term stay would be very costly. The health issues associated is also make things worse. Maybe in future, definitely not now.
cr8agame
Who would ever want to go to mars and not come back to earth. What would happen when they run out of oxygen. This would mean that the person who went on the mission would basically die. It would be pointless anyway as they would not get much information beack as they can only get pics, no dirt samples or whatever.

I just think it is just stupid.
ocalhoun
cr8agame wrote:
Who would ever want to go to mars and not come back to earth. What would happen when they run out of oxygen.

You would send them with the equipment to set up a self-sustaining ecosystem of course. (Biodome style.)
They would need the ability to recycle exhaled CO2 back to oxygen... and for that matter, they would also need to be able to process waste, purify water, and grow food.
Thankfully, a sufficient volume of plants can do all those things, so basically, they need to bring along some serious (space) gardening supplies.
audiodevelop
Space Gardens! Shocked

I guess it would be cool to see a bunch of robot gardeners on mars, maintaining space garden fields (or Mars Farms as I would put it)

Just imagine it. Red Planet. being turned to green.
Wink

Then we could send people, who will have something to eat there Razz
Gitesh
Many would compete to volunteer for this mission.,
Radar
I think that a one way trip is a desperate effort to make something happen, anything at all. My understanding is that doing a round trip isn't impossible, the money just needs to be authorised to do it.

One way might be cheaper, which may sound like meaning that it's more likely to happen, but that sounds like the worst PR ever for space exploration. You think people aren't excited about it now. Do this, and people will be hating the idea.
ocalhoun
Radar wrote:
but that sounds like the worst PR ever for space exploration.

You just have to spin it the right way.

It's not a desperate attempt... It's colonization! The pages of sci-fi are finally coming to life, and mankind is making the very first off-world colony!

Or, howabout this:
We could do a two way trip, and send a team of 3 to 5 people there for perhaps a month or two...
Or, for less investment we could do a one way trip, sending and entire self-sufficient colony!

(Enough stuff to make a nice big colony, after all, would still weigh less than all the fuel needed for the return trip.)




Personally, though, I'd prefer to see a lunar colony first.
Save Mars for when either space travel becomes much cheaper and easier, or when terraforimg ability becomes real.
(Though some have proposed Venus as a better first choice for terraforming... something about an orbital shield to reduce sun exposure, leading it to become habitable relatively easily.)
andro_king
Sounds like a suicide mission than a mission to Mars..! Smile
GuidanceReader
I would have taken this offer up in a heartbeat, before I had children and if I could afford it.
milkshake01
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/BackTo328.html wrote:

During space missions astronauts suffer about ten times faster bone and muscle loss and deterioration as patients with muscular dystrophy and osteoporosis. For every month in orbit, astronauts lose about 2% of their bone mass. The molecular basis for this loss is not yet understood


The problem of bone and muscle loss in space needs to be solved before living on Mars.
zaxacongrejo
In my opinion we are much smarter than just send humans there, and the volunteer idea sounds insane if you have to send a real human beens better to send the best prepared people we have
Quote:
The problem of bone and muscle loss in space needs to be solved before living on Mars.

Cancer growing etc etc etc
And
Quote:
The problem of bone and muscle loss in space needs to be solved before living on Mars.

I guess can only be solved with artificial gravity which the only way we know can only be done by SPINING so imagine what can be to spin an entaire space ship besides is not practic and will result in a lot more problems that just spin the ship and even more
A space ship to travel to march can only be assembled already out of the planet because its huge and must be assembled in modules
More our actual propulsion engines do not work for this cases we will need to revisit the 50s and the Nasa bionic engines
So the overall idea of sending humans to march is not for our life time
I guess if we really want to go there, or keep going there, we will have to improve our bots in several ways
Till we reach a sustained and trustable level of AI and control, surroundings understanding and perception etc. then just send them; send their bases, their Vehicles etc., the all apparatus
But for bots not for us loll insane again this is just my personal opinion
milkshake01
Thanks for contributing the idea of artificial gravity. It would probably take a very long time for such a technology to be invented. More research on risks in outer space should be done before sending people to Mars.
zaxacongrejo
hi
Quote:
It would probably take a very long time for such a technology to be invented


is not a new concept or technologie, as already been tested but is not a solution but a full hand of problems ,on the other side mussle loss i queit a big problem if you want to imagine how curently artificial gravity is done or even test just get inside washing machine and ask some one to push the on button Very Happy
fuzzkaizer
somebody allready compared it to the "explorers in the past".
lots of the first settlers heading from europe to america maybe were neither sure about their ship to arrive safely at the other coast, nor to survive there, not to mention to return to europe one day. maybe their chances to survive for some time were not so much higher than that trip to mars would offer nowadays?
Iceaxe0410
I think a one way trip to Mars could work. You just need to find people that are willing to do that. Makes me think of Space Cowboys and how Tommy Lee Jones made a one way trip to the moon. Maybe send astronauts there that do not have a future. I'm sure there are some people that would even want Mars to be their final resting place. I don't see much wrong with it so long as the people sent there are cognizant to make their own decisions. I can't really condone sending prisoners or mentally unstable people over there. It would have to be people willing and able to go and that fully understand the consequences of the mission.
bennybumkins
zaxacongrejo wrote:
In my opinion we are much smarter than just send humans there, and the volunteer idea sounds insane if you have to send a real human beens better to send the best prepared people we have
Quote:
The problem of bone and muscle loss in space needs to be solved before living on Mars.

Cancer growing etc etc etc
And
Quote:
The problem of bone and muscle loss in space needs to be solved before living on Mars.

I guess can only be solved with artificial gravity which the only way we know can only be done by SPINING so imagine what can be to spin an entaire space ship besides is not practic and will result in a lot more problems that just spin the ship and even more
A space ship to travel to march can only be assembled already out of the planet because its huge and must be assembled in modules
More our actual propulsion engines do not work for this cases we will need to revisit the 50s and the Nasa bionic engines
So the overall idea of sending humans to march is not for our life time
I guess if we really want to go there, or keep going there, we will have to improve our bots in several ways
Till we reach a sustained and trustable level of AI and control, surroundings understanding and perception etc. then just send them; send their bases, their Vehicles etc., the all apparatus
But for bots not for us loll insane again this is just my personal opinion


Have you read all the information fully relating to the Mars One mission? I myself am not an expert but my colleague and I are both extremely interested in this and have spent many hours discussing the In's and Out's

First off as i do not see any links to the official website here it is: http://mars-one.com

And a quote from the website,

"The Working Plan
In 2011, the founding members of the Mars One team came together to develop a strategic plan for taking humanity to Mars. That first year yielded the completion of a feasibility study, calling upon experts from space agencies and private aerospace corporations around the world. Written letters of interest in support of the Mars One plan were received. In this first-stage analysis, Mars One incorporated technical, financial, social-psychological and ethical components into its foundation plan.

This tremendous undertaking can only be achieved through the careful, deliberate movement through both the technical and media stages, gaining momentum and credibility with each completed step. The first effort is to award contracts to the already engaged aerospace suppliers, thus solidifying the Mission as technically feasible. At the same time, Mars One will launch the Astronaut Selection Program, open to anyone in the world.

Not unlike the televised events of the Olympic Games, Mars One intends to maintain an on-going, globally televised media event, from astronaut selection to training, from lift-off to landing, to provide primary funding for this next giant leap for mankind."


If you look at the time guidelines and the people involved, this will definitely happen and as this is a Non for profit organisation backed by the top guys in the industry with the funding it needs, there should not really be any delays as long as there selection process goes things should work out well.

In reply to the bone and muscle loss in space, this is why the mission is planned as 'one-way' as in a current situation the human body would not be able to take a trip back to earth after adapting to the Mars environment. Also they will adapt just as humans have from Australopithecus, Neanderthals e.t.c. It is just Evolution, also with the advances in technology, science, medical studies it will be possible eventually for return trips based on the extensive testing the atmosphere has on the body and ways to overcome or compensate for this.
zaxacongrejo
loll what a mix of stuff science + big brother?
ok let’s wait till 2023 to see what happens
nixink
If the possibility to sustain a "normal, under the given circumstances" existence could be established on Mars then I think that 1-WAY is less impacting than TRIP TO MARS! Depending on the quality of life and the amount of advancement that could come from such an appointment, I think there are many people that already feel they are able to live alone for the rest of their lives, and as such would need simply to adapt to living conditions... People move permanently from previous residences, previous neighborhoods, states, countries, etc all the time... the move isn't the issue, the question is, is the sacrifice worth the gain? At this stage of our global development, can significant knowledge be gained from the restrictive conditions, will we as a global society benefit significantly or only just...
Either way and for whatever reason, the prospect of furthering our universal experience and advancement is a very exciting prospect
Related topics
UK scientists clone human embryo
a trip to bulgaria before we joind the army
Resources are about to run out. What are we to do?..
Ice Lake on Mars?
Aliens - Myth or reality?
Which is your fave Planet
how dinosaurs disappared from the world?
Scientists surprised about comet's ingredients
Space race
New NASA photo shows human like figure on Mars
scientists to hunt for aliens by analyzing reflected lights
God exists - and here's the proof
Mars One Released Their Qualifications For Their Astronauts
Did Life on Earth begin on Mars? Scientists says maybe.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Amazing Projects

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.