Welcome to the very first edition of the WonderOutpost Science Forum. WonderOutpost brings controversial science discussions to the blogisphere and invites everyone to participate. Here is our very first topic:
“Sometime before the end of this century, there will be a human colony on Mars. It will happen when people finally wake up to the fact that two-way trips to the red planet are unnecessary.”
So begins Arizona State physicist Paul Davies in an essay entitled “A One-Way Ticket to Mars.” Davies does not envision a suicide mission. Rather, he makes the following claim:
“Adequate supplies, including a nuclear power source, can be sent on ahead, and every two years more supplies, and more astronauts, will be dispatched to the new colony.”
Davies may be right. But a truly adventurous nation will forgo the suicide proscription. If a brave, aging astronaut wants to end his/her days on the Red Planet making unparalleled contributions to geology and, perhaps, biology, are we to say “no”? I’ll bet that SOME spacefaring nation will say “yes,” and will do so before 2025.
We invite you to weigh in on this subject as well as any of the following questions. Please leave your comments below.
- How much easier/cheaper is a mission that involves no return to Earth?
- How long could astronauts survive on Mars?
- What qualifications/motivations would qualify an astronaut for such a mission?
- Are we ethically willing to “send astronauts to their death” on Mars?
- Who is the “we” in the previous question? Americans? (What if the Russians or the Chinese are willing to do it?)
- Is it better to send robots in the first place?!
Don’t miss Wonderfest 2009 in November, where scientists debate “Do Robots Make Better Astronauts?”
For further study:
- This NASA pdf provides excellent background on the inhospitable Martian environment: http://imaginemars.jpl.nasa.gov/info/DiscoverInfo.pdf
- Most of all, human martians may miss the radiation shielding that Earth’s atmosphere provides, protecting us from solar flares and cosmic rays. To appreciate the harsh radiation environment on Mars, see http://klabs.org/richcontent/Tutorial/radiation/space_rad_health/spaceflight_radiation_health_program.htm
- Michael Cole’s 1999 book “Living on Mars: Mission To The Red Planet” [Enslow Publishers, Springfield, NJ] describes the landing of Sojourner on Mars, summarizes the history of information gathering missions, and speculates about future plans for explorations of the Red Planet.
June 27th, 2009 - 11:16 am
[...] do it, won’t the Russians or the Chinese? Discuss this fascinating topic in the brand new Wonderlicious Science Forum at wonderfest.org. Priestley Medal winner Dick [...]
June 27th, 2009 - 5:31 pm
Like the race to the moon, we are more likely to go to Mars for competitive reasons than practical ones. It is simply the nature of man-kind that a small number of us are willing to make great sacrifices, at great risk, and at great cost to go where no one man has gone before. Humans seem to place a great value on firsts (or who has the bigger stick).
The space station has shown that people can live in an enclosed environment for prolonged periods provided that there are a continuous stream of supplies. We have the technology and it is ever improving.
And, such a project has shown to survive political shifts and forge international unions.
With our thirst for knowledge and a little competition, we will get there sooner than later.
I think 2025 is a good bet.
2050: first Martian baby!
June 28th, 2009 - 11:08 am
What a fascinating idea. Not a sci-fi enthusiast, but it all seems possible.
I wonder if any of the early Earth explorers felt theirs was a one way trip.
I’m concerned that the first Martian baby will not have all it’s digits. Will we be able to shield ourselves sufficiently from cosmic rays? But maybe, as they say, if it doesn’t kill us, it will make us stronger.
Thanks, Wonder Outpost, for this forum.
July 2nd, 2009 - 1:17 pm
Are we as a nation willing to send someone on a one way suicide mission to Mars? I’m sure there would be no lack of volunteers.
Life in general is a one way suicide mission. The difference between life and a trip to Mars is that most of us are not sure when our mission will end. The cafeteria ethicists who are, for example, against assisted suicide, will take a knee-jerk position to prevent the exercise of free will in this regard.
If allowed to come to a vote by our political representatives, a one way trip to Mars will undoubtedly fail to be authorized. Science in general is not esteemed by politicians. Science brings, among other things, inconvenient truths which threaten the status quo and confound irrational belief.
The first nation to Mars will be one not mired in the morass of religion or superstition. It will be from a nation not controlled by the tyranny of an idiocracy. Until we can offer a return trip, no matter how risky, we will be watching from the sidelines.
September 1st, 2009 - 9:54 pm
Interesting comments Big Curmudgeon. Given the ‘world’ view of the previous comments your mention of “nation’ suggested you’re writing from a USA perspective, but then later comments suggested maybe otherwise. Either way, surely, you mean “the nation that is only prepared to consider being part of a return trip program will be watching from the sidelines”. A program that accepts high risk and one that is designed around a one way trip is so much simpler and cheaper that by any practical analysis a return trip option doesn’t stack up.
September 25th, 2009 - 11:35 am
Just wanted to make this post and tell you what an interesting blog you have going on here. Please do not stop.
October 19th, 2009 - 11:45 am
The prospect of colonies on Mars or Jupiter’s moons stimulates my imagination. But unlike colonists on earth, who could and do engineer their environment to sustain life, colonists in space may have to engineer themselves to survive. An exposed and unmodified human in any non-earthly environment would meet immediate death. A robot, lacking a self-aware conscience mind, could exist and function in a hostile environment (as on mars now) but this doesn’t satisfy the colonial urge.
A modified human, however, might stand a chance. Genetic engineering to withstand and repair damage from solar winds, extreme magnetic fields, gamma rays and the raw wash of neutrinos will be needed. Modifications to the brain must be made to compensate for the loss of our terrestrial evolution. We will need to become functional Cyborgs with enhanced or altered sensory perceptions, strength, or endurance. Remarkable progress is being made in the synthesis and convergence of many areas of science to do just that. Before too long we should be able to build a human from a blueprint to adapt to even the most hostile environments.
But would such a modified being be human? Would that being feel a kinship to its more slowly evolved creators, and we to it? Will we, in our current yearning state of wonder, be satisfied with this vicarious extra-terrestrial experience?