/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1372175]

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/04/a-one-way-one-person-mission-to-mars/

Will humans ever really go to Mars? Let's face it, the obstacles are quite daunting. Not only are there numerous, difficult, technical issues to overcome, but the political will and perseverance of any one nation to undertake such an arduous task just can't be counted on. However, one former NASA engineer believes a human mission to Mars is quite doable, and such an event would unify the world as never before. But Jim McLane's proposal includes a couple of major caveats: the trip to Mars should be one-way, and have a crew of only one person.

McLane worked at NASA for 21 years before leaving in 2007 to work for a private engineering firm. Being able to look from afar at NASA's activities has given him a new perspective, he says.
But McLane was still at NASA when he originally had an idea for a one-way, one-person mission to Mars. He calls his proposal the "Spirit of the Lone Eagle," in deference to Charles Lindbergh's solo flight from New York to Paris in 1927.

McLane's idea came from his acquaintance with a Russian cosmonaut. "I noticed the cosmonaut seemed to be a slightly different type of person than the American astronaut," McLane said. "Cosmonauts are primarily pilots, and like test pilots, they are very focused on getting the job done. The current American astronauts are picked for things such as their speaking ability and social skills, and most of them have advanced degrees. But the cosmonaut struck me as an adventurous, get-things-done-type person, like our original astronauts back in the 1960's."

A return to the "get it done" attitude of the 1960's and a goal of a manned landing within a short time frame, like Apollo, is the only way we'll get to Mars, McLane believes. Additionally, a no-return, solo mission solves many of the problems currently facing a round-trip, multiple person crew.

[Anonymous No.1372179]

"When we eliminate the need to launch off Mars, we remove the mission's most daunting obstacle," said McLane. And because of a small crew size, the spacecraft could be smaller and the need for consumables and supplies would be decreased, making the mission cheaper and less complicated.

While some might classify this as a suicide mission, McLane feels the concept is completely logical.

"There would be tremendous risk, yes," said McLane, "but I don't think that's guaranteed any more than you would say climbing a mountain alone is a suicide mission. People do dangerous things all the time, and this would be something really unique, to go to Mars. I don't think there would be any shortage of people willing to volunteer for the mission.

Lindbergh was someone who was willing to risk everything because it was worth it. I don't think it will be hard to find another Lindbergh to go to Mars. That will be the easiest part of this whole program."

And like Apollo, such a mission would stimulate new technology and reinvigorate science. McLane feels a mission to Mars should be international in scope, encompassing contributions from multiple nations to represent a milestone for the whole human race.

"I think people have forgotten how exciting the Apollo program was, and this would bring that excitement back," he said. "And it wasn't just here in the US; the whole world was excited. This enthusiasm would be the greatest effect of a program that places a man on Mars, over and above anything else, whether it makes jobs, or stimulates the economy, or creates technology spinoffs. We're all humans and the idea of sending one of our kind on a trip like that would be a wonderful adventure for the entire world. The whole world would get behind it."

[Anonymous No.1372182]

And the whole world would be watching, said McLane, so it wouldn't be as if the lone astronaut would be completely by himself. "You would have constant communication," he said. "The astronauts on the International Space Station have an army of people on earth keeping track of what they are doing. They really have no peace. Somebody is constantly planning and monitoring their activities. I don't think being lonely will be much of a problem on a mission to Mars."

Of course McLane's hope is the solo astronaut would be joined by others shortly in the future. Orbital mechanics provides a desirable launch window from Earth to Mars every 26 months. "This person wouldn't be there by himself for very long. It's just returning home that would be impossible," he said. Another option McLane has offered is a one-man and one-woman crew, possibly creating an Adam and Eve-type situation.

Unmanned landers would carry living accommodations, supplies and communication equipment to Mars' surface before the human mission would even launch. The best location on Mars would be a low, sheltered area, perhaps at the bottom of a canyon, which would provide protection from radiation and weather, as well as the highest possible atmospheric pressure.

While technical issues abound for even the simplest human mission to Mars, McLane says technical issues didn't deter the Apollo program, and they shouldn't deter a mission to another planet.

"I can remember during the early days of the Apollo program, there were even many more technical issues than we face today in going to Mars," said McLane. "People don't realize that, or have forgotten that fact. Several things were tremendous unknowns back then, any one of which could have been a showstopper for a human moon landing."

[Anonymous No.1372187]

McLane said the early designers of the Apollo spacecraft gambled that in 3 or 4 years, high powered transistors and small guidance computers would be developed. That was the only way the spacecraft would be lightweight enough to land on the moon. "It was almost science fiction, but someone thought it could be done in just a few years, and sure enough the technology was perfected in time to make the mission possible," he said.

While Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin and noted author and physicist Paul Davies have also advocated a one-way trip to Mars, in our risk-averse society most people look askance at such an idea.

Even though explorers in the past traveled, for example, to the south or north pole, knowing they might never return, and thousands of immigrants moved to the US in the 18- and 1900's, knowing they would never see their homeland again, the human psyche has seemingly changed enough that a one-way ticket off the planet is not acceptable. According to psychologist Molly Dooley from Springfield, IL, it might take a major crisis on Earth for humans to seriously consider such a mission. "Usually it's the disenfranchised that are willing to take those kinds of risks," she said. "When our present situation no longer works for us, we become more willing to take risks. The difference between the folks who are interested and those who aren't is their attachment to their current situation."

[Anonymous No.1372189]

McLane says the main reason NASA hasn't been able to focus on a human mission to Mars is simple: NASA doesn't get nearly enough money. "This has been the case for many years," he said. "They didn't get enough money to fix problems with the shuttle, and they've always been chronically short of money. How we fund NASA is a big handicap, since every year, NASA has to go begging to Congress for funds and justify their budget. The Chinese space program, on the other hand, has an advantage in that they budget their projects in five-year increments. If we really want to go somewhere, we'll have to change how NASA gets its money."

But McLane thinks NASA is at fault for not even considering a one-way mission to Mars. "For over forty years they've studied all sorts of options, but haven't admitted to ever looking at a one-way mission to Mars," he said. "We shouldn't be stuck on this rock forever. I believe it's in our human nature to try to go somewhere else, and we've almost worn this world out. I think now is the time to reach out and go somewhere else to start with a clean slate. There is no reason not to try."

[Anonymous No.1372192]

McLane says the main reason NASA hasn't been able to focus on a human mission to Mars is simple: NASA doesn't get nearly enough money. "This has been the case for many years," he said. "They didn't get enough money to fix problems with the shuttle, and they've always been chronically short of money. How we fund NASA is a big handicap, since every year, NASA has to go begging to Congress for funds and justify their budget. The Chinese space program, on the other hand, has an advantage in that they budget their projects in five-year increments. If we really want to go somewhere, we'll have to change how NASA gets its money."

But McLane thinks NASA is at fault for not even considering a one-way mission to Mars. "For over forty years they've studied all sorts of options, but haven't admitted to ever looking at a one-way mission to Mars," he said. "We shouldn't be stuck on this rock forever. I believe it's in our human nature to try to go somewhere else, and we've almost worn this world out. I think now is the time to reach out and go somewhere else to start with a clean slate. There is no reason not to try."

[Anonymous No.1372206]

>Mars
Only thing keeping us from doing this is the cost of getting shit up there.
First off, we need to get a foothold on the moon. Set up camp there. Use it as a training and testing ground.
If you can survive on the Moon, Mars will be a cakewalk.
Helium 3 would be a perfect fuel to stockpile.
Launch your shit from the Moon with little effort, save space and fuel due to nearly 0 gravity.
Colonize Mars.
Terraform that shit.
Breathable Mars air within 30-40 years.

Goddamn it feels good to be in my 20's right now.

[Anonymous No.1372213]

i will volunteer for a 1 way 1 man mission, ID LOVE THAT SHIT

[Anonymous No.1372215]

>>1372206

hell ya, i am 19, so i hopefully see this in my lifetime

[Anonymous No.1372221]

Cool thread OP, thank you very much

[Anonymous No.1372223]

if i was bill gates, i would dump ALL OF MY FUCKING MONEY STRICTLY INTO MARS MISSION FUNDING

[Anonymous No.1372239]

self-bump because of tractors

[Anonymous No.1372241]

theres no point of going to mars

[Anonymous No.1372244]

>>1372206
The point being, that sending people to space would be much more efficient if there was no return-trip. It's just the carebearing attitude nowadays which prevents humanity to take such means. I'm pretty f***ing convinced that there are shittons of people, even astro-/cosmonauts willing to take such challenges.

[Anonymous No.1372249]

Great read, OP, ty~

[Anonymous No.1372255]

http://vodo.net/pioneerone
If we're already at that topic.

[Anonymous No.1372267]

>>1372255
God damn that show is awesome

[Anonymous No.1372271]

I have no doubt NASA has thought of a small crew one-way trip to Mars but it would instantly have everyone up in BAWWWW if they even suggested it

[Anonymous No.1372281]

>>1372271

If we'd still be in a state of cold war, we'd have blackwater programs to take care of the BAAAWING.
The Russians did that. Pretty creepy shit.

[Anonymous No.1372280]

>>DURR BUDDY SYSTEM IS SHIT GUYS,
>>LETS PUT ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET
Holy shit this guy is stupid,

[Anonymous No.1372282]

bump for actual /sci/ thread

[Anonymous No.1372291]

>>1372241
would someone please explain to me why we even want to go into space?

There no point, besides human emotion of "OMG SO AWESOME IM ON ANOTHER PLANET".

It would only be beneficial if it could save the human race, and that again is pointless

infact everything is pointless. fuck nihilism

[Anonymous No.1372299]

I got this off /sci/ before
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg
Interesting albeit long talk on how to do Mars

[Scia No.1372300]

bump for actual /sci/ thread

[Anonymous No.1372308]

>>1372291
Please go and take a bath with the nearest electronic device. Darwin will be glad.

[Anonymous No.1372330]

>>1372308
I just did.
With distilled water.

[Anonymous No.1372335]

Could someone tell me why we want to go to Mars when Venus is closer?

[Anonymous No.1372339]

>>1372335
Venus is too hot and inhospitable.

[Anonymous No.1372342]

I bet most of this board would volunteer immediately.

[Anonymous No.1372343]

why dont we just live on earth

things will much easier

[Anonymous No.1372346]

>>1372339
no its not.

have a base flaoting around in venus upper atmosphere
???
PROFIT( the pressure is about 1 bar, temperatures would be around 20 degrees celcius. win)

[Anonymous No.1372353]

>>1372346
>have a base flaoting around in venus upper atmosphere

How do we establish a floating base in the upper atmosphere of a planet with almost the same mass as that of Earth? Get fucking real.

[Anonymous No.1372356]

>>1372291
I always come to the same conclusion. Everything is fucking pointless...

But then again I dont kill myself and enjoy living. Mostly because I am programmed to do so.

[Anonymous No.1372363]

How long would it take to get to Mars?

[Anonymous No.1372367]

>>1372353
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus

read "Aerostat habitats and floating cities"

[Anonymous No.1372370]

>>1372353
Yeah! Yeah! It's not like anyone ever invented hot-air balloons or rigid-body airships! Something floating in air is total hogwash. Montgolfiers shooped their evidence.

[Anonymous No.1372375]

YEAH, WE SHOULD ONLY START WORKING ON COLONIZING OTHER PLANETS WHEN WE SEE A MASSIVE ASTEROID ON IT'S WAY. WE'LL HAVE ENOUGH TIME I'M SURE.

[Anonymous No.1372379]

>>1372370
BUTT HURR ITS NOT LIKE THERES ANY HOT AIR ON VENUS, NEITHER ANY INSANE PRESSURE BELOW YOU THAT COULD POSSIBLE IMITATE FLOATING ON TOP OF IT

oh wait

[Anonymous No.1372399]

In the 1960's we had money, energy and resources to burn. The USA was the world's largest oil producer, the world's largest coal producer, and was casually flaring an enormous amount of natural gas because we didn't need it. We also had the world's largest timber industry and the world's largest steel industry. We were producing 75% of the world's exports. China, today's export leader, makes 20%.

We will never have that much money and resource again. We fucking used it. It's gone.

We are never going back to the moon, and we are certainly never going to Mars.

[Anonymous No.1372419]

>>1372399
This is the saddest thing I have ever read on the internet.

[Anonymous No.1372442]

>>1372399
You are thinking in country-terms.
Forget that.
If we cooperate (with we I mean Europe, USA, Canada and possibly Japan and Russia) we could easily pull off a mission to mars.
We have to start thinking bigger than countries. even bigger than continents.

[Anonymous No.1372448]

>>1372442
SPOILER: Hippie-dippy world peace projects aren't happening either.

[Anonymous No.1372460]

>>1372442
Those countries are all struggling to use progressively more limited resources to support growing populations. They don't have money to burn like the 1960's US did. That ship has sailed.

[Anonymous No.1372536]

>>1372399

Then all we have to do is go back in time and convince US that in the future, we'll need that money to go to Mars so don't go waste it by going to the moon.

[Anonymous No.1372551]

>>1372399
Aww man, ruined my "at least the future will be cool" buzz. Think i'll read The Road again and stock up on tinned fruit

[Anonymous No.1372651]

bump

[Anonymous No.1372663]

>one-way, one-person mission

Does anyone else think this is a phenomenally bad idea, from both a psychological and an ethical standpoint?

[Anonymous No.1372693]

>>1372663

No. I would volunteer (though I would need to work on physical fitness first :S). I don't think what is being suggested is a one way death mission. Rather, what is meant is that the person would arrive on Mars and begin to establish a basic civilisation using whatever local resources can be used and equipment (which was either sent beforehand or brought with the guy). Future one way missions would bring more resources, equipment, people, etc.

[Anonymous No.1372708]

>one way missions
>It was the dawning of the tragically short-lived first colony on Mars, populated solely by politicians, lawyers, executives and furries

[Anonymous No.1372716]

I like how he proposes a suicide mission, his survival propositions are very blurry.

Still, a lot of people would probably do it, except NASA would get tremendously bad press for sending a man out to die just to present their metaphoric dick to the world.

[Anonymous No.1372723]

>>1372663
No, the person doing that would basically become the Jesus of science (dying for our knowledge and stuff). And if you look what the Jesus of Religion was able to do...

[Anonymous No.1372730]

>>1372223

He could fund it all if he felt like it.

You know he'd want his very own planet.

[Anonymous No.1372734]

>>1372399
We are not even close to being as economically crippled or short on resources as you seem to believe.

[Anonymous No.1372754]

>>1372399
Implying the USA isn't far more wealthy today than in the 1960's.

[Anonymous No.1372795]

>>1372754

Doesn't matter a whole lot when Chinks make half of our items with low grade materials.

[Anonymous No.1372801]

Only thing keeping us from going to mars right now is the lack of imagination in power. You say "colonize mars," and everyone laughs like it's purely science fiction.

[Anonymous No.1372814]

>>1372801
I bet humanity could make colonies on the moon mars and venus in 10 years simultaneously if we just got our shit together

[Anonymous No.1372817]

>>1372814
Yeah... I don't know about all that. I'm not saying we couldn't do it, I'm just saying it would take longer than 10 years. Even if we all worked together, with different countries working solo it would take some time.

[Anonymous No.1372873]

>>1372817
We could easily get to mars in under 10 years if we yanked our heads out of our asses and got shit done.

[Anonymous No.1372888]

>>1372754
>>1372734
That depends what you mean by "wealthy" or "crippled". Are we still a rich nation in world terms? Absolutely. We're just using that money to buy resources that we can no longer produce and using those resources to sustain a standard of living we can no longer afford.

We don't have extra cash available for Mars missions.

[Anonymous No.1372900]

>>1372801
>>1372814
What would you like humanity to stop spending its money and resources on in order to allow that to happen? The only thing wasteful enough is the military. If by "get our shit together" you mean "stop spending any money on wars and weapons" then yes... it might be possible. I don't know what world you live in that you think that's even remotely plausible.

[Anonymous No.1372918]

What hope is sitting isn't a Suicide Mission
But it's not a Sacrifice either.

It's needless investment's mixed with a ethic dangerous to encourage.
I won't talk about the social implication of a society where we sacrifice people, even if they are volunteer.

WHAT THE POINT OF SENDING A MAN ON MARS ?
Really ? Robot do everything better than us.
If we needed to get some Martian soil it would be cheaper to send a robot capable of bringing it back, you don't need a man to shovel the soil.
But you need all the scientist of the world and a big infrastructure to analyze it properly.

The only point of sending men IN SPACE, is to see if they can live there and we can do that in orbit.
At the very last if you want efficiency you send people IN ORBIT to control the robot on the ground.
That's a billion time cheaper !

Then will come a day where you prepared so much the terrain that you realize you can spend your vacation there for no money at all.

WHY IS THAT HARD TO PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND ?
(it's not like robotic technology isn't up to the task)

[Anonymous No.1372942]

> What hope is sitting isn't
dammit ... I really wrote that ? .... crap.

[Anonymous No.1372944]

>>1372918
>>1372918
y helo thar

[Anonymous No.1372952]

>>1372918
1 - Send robots to build stuff while we heavily focus on R&D here on earth
2 - Send more stuff to robots to build shit with, acquire data and send more satellites to monitor the planet meanwhile
3 - One way missions with people to colonize the planet
4 - The infrastructure to launch ships to Earth will at one point be available on Mars itself if we keep sending people and resources
5 - Repeat the process on Venus with FLYING SPACE ROBOTS
6 - Send guys with just a GED and a space suit build shit in the atmosphere of Venus with the FLYING SPACE ROBOTS (I'm sure we can find a construction company willing to do that, and it's probably going to be cheaper)
7 - Officially colonize Venus with one way trips and build what we need to launch ship to Earth or Mars

FUCK YEAH SPACE TRIANGLE

Now we just need to figure out how to transport a large ammount of resources from earth to other planets through one way flights and to develop awesome robots.

I'm a fucking genius.

[Anonymous No.1372957]

>>1372952
Put this man in charge of NASA, now!

[Anonymous No.1372958]

>>1372952
Do you know how much that would cost?

[Anonymous No.1372964]

>>1372958
Give me a team of people and I'll figure it out.

I'm sure it would not be as expensive as you think. We're talking about something that would be done over 30 to 50 years and we could quickly get more shit done with enough R&D.

Half the US military budget + current NASA budget + "space bonds" or some shit the government can make up + help from the space agencies of other countries.

Alternatively just rename Marines to SPACE MARINES and rationalize the use of the military in space, I'm sure americans would dig that shit.

[Anonymous No.1373071]

>>1372957
....The message this guy quoted is far more intelligent (and it's mine).


About Mars, the thing would go like that :
R&D in every sort of robot to build efficient factory
- The first wave would be a Autonomous Nuclear Fission pile or a lot of easily deployable solar panel to recharge the robot's battery.
- Then we send a space station built from what we learned around Earth to Mars, Nobody aboard the travel is too long. Several satellite are positioned on GEO around Mars to maintain the link to the robot.
- Alternative : We built the space station inside Phobos or Deimos, free radiation protection.
- The second wave of robot is sent, an human crew is sent aboard a very fast One-way Spaceship, the return ship and the food being on the station sent before.
- Human guide the robots for maximum efficiency, while we send robots/food on a slow travel.

That way we save a maximum lot of money.
- 50 years later Mars can launch it's own ship, humanity stop making "huge step" and begin to run.

[Anonymous No.1373127]

>>1372964
>just rename Marines to SPACE MARINES and rationalize the use of the military in space, I'm sure americans would dig that shit.
That could seriously work.