Science and Society

I agree, there will be many willing to go on a one way trip, but how many of us would be willing to send someone knowing that it is a death sentence?

moronic - worthy of a Dilbert cartoon.

I would think that someone in the early stages of a terminal illness would be happy to volunteer actually--isn't it the dream of every person to be able to do something that could benefit all mankind?

Let my kids get grown up and I'd volunteer in a minute w/no regrets.

Like the movie "Capricorn One"?

There is a difference between planning to make it back and not being able to do so (like Lindbergh, who had many predecessors who didn't survive) and knowing you won't come back. Certainly there would be people willing to go, for the anticipated adulation if nothing else, and the Middle East is full of them blowing themselves up every day in the name of a cause. But people would want to remember a manned trip that was successful from launch to splashdown on Earth.

If there was some way of guaranteeing them food and oxygen supply on Mars, then I could see this to be much more likely. Then it's not a death mission, it's more of a permanent colonization.

NASA should be scrapped from government funding and supported solely by private investors.

Thanks for that. Now I am embarrassed to be a human being.

I volunteer!! Send me to Mars ASAP !!!

And please God, when I die; could you reincarnate me into a species more intelligent; perhaps a mushroom?

First, we would have to pass progressive legislation supportive of humane and swift assisted suicides, (besides enlisting for a HUMVEE mission.)

I think this was framed wrong. We already have proven technology to send objects to safely land on Mars. A person who took a one way trip could potentially (albeit expensively) be sustained from Earth throughout his/her lifetime and even joined by other astronauts. It would be more like a colonization than a death trip.

I mean really...you want to use the premise of a suicide mission to mars....to..umm..unify the world.

Hey Robert - the writer of the article didn't come up with the idea! Read the thing through again. It's NOT his moronic, repugnant idea. But it is news.

I nominate George W. Bush!

Jesse
More importantly - WATER. If you can get a supply of water you can use a fuel cell to provide all your power and heat, assemble a greenhouse to create more oxygen and food supply. But first you have to have a large supply of water (liquid or solid does not matter).

Send a few male and female kids out of college to colonize. Keep sending replenishment supplies. How cool to have the first baby on the martian surface.

Beam me Up!!

Before we consider the human mission we need a successful robotic sample return one. This would allow to test the lunch from the Mars surface at much smaller scale. And find this sort of mission as exciting and imagination capturing as anything else.

Um...I see his point but I don't think listening to an astronaut describe the beauty of the Martian surface right before he unlatched his helmet and died of exposure would make ANYONE feel good.

Wouldn't that set an ominous prescedent for the United States if we said that we were willing to sacrifice human beings in the name of progress? Isn't the purpose of progress to improve life, not destroy it?

Going to Mars wouldn't act as a unifier any more than the lunar mission was. And aside from some scientific research that can just as easily and much more cheaply be done with unmanned probes, there is no reason that we need to go there. Lets not put the carriage before the horse and let technology reach a level where travel to Mars can be done safely and efficiently.

A friend of mine, a Ph.D. in Geology, had this idea 5 years ago, and told me that when he asked his unmarried colleagues if they'd sign up, about 1/3 of them said that would be fine with them. Being the first person on Mars was worth it, they said.

I don't doubt that NASA could find someone to do this.

I nominate Hilary then she can be President of Mars and won't have to worry about those 3 AM calls.

So what is this single human on mars going to do? MUCH cheaper and more practical to use robots. You can have them working there for years. It wouldn't be practical to send a human and all the life support equipment and supplies that would be required to achieve the same results. We need to focus on more beneficial goals like increasing our launch efficiency. Once we can pull stuff out of earth's gravity well for a more reasonable price, a trip to Mars will be practical. I think there should be more focus on building a space elevator. Supposedly, we already know how to make material strong enough for the cables. Something like this will require a lot of international negotiation. IE where to locate the base, construction of materials. Launch of facilities into orbit, etc... Treaties to protect it, etc... Once it's in place, colonizing the moon, building space stations, or going to mars will be a cinch.

Doug-
There is nothing news worthy concerning a suicide mars mission. No engineer in their right mind would work on such a project. Any science section in any periodical should approach the subject of space travel with some seriousness. Sending someone on a "one-way" mars mission is nuts

Some of these responses are ridiculous. Do you realize how many people died trying to make the first powered flight? The Wright brothers weren't the first people who tried to fly, nor were they the last. Even after they were successful plenty of people got themselves killed trying to repeat what they did.

Also the whole 'wait for the technology to come' argument is completely illogical. Technology is not some disembodied force that propels itself along. The only way to advance the state of technology (remember, technology is applied science) is to actually go and do it, to actually go an apply it.

You have to actually read the original article. It isn't a death mission at all. The idea is that you'd continue to send a stream of astronauts, each one carrying a larger payload faster as each successful mission lead to advances in the next. Eventually you'll start sending more people, building up a colony and infrastructure, and eventually you'll be able to make return trips. Yes, the first people that get there likely will die there, but they won't necessarily die tragically or alone.

We're all going to die someday. The only difference is when and how.

I think we should. This is the perfect opportunity to capture some of the some excitement an sense of common purpose that was around during Apollo, but on an international scale.

Sure...We could pipe David Bowie ("Space Oddity") into the spaceship as the volunteer astronaut journeys toward Mars. You know...the song that starts with, "Ground Control to Major Tom..."

Wow, I've got a long list of people that would be perfect for a one way trip! And I bet they could be trained to be an astronaut too.

Could they make it for two so bush and cheney could go together.... ?

There really is no point in sending a single person on a one-way trip. You need a team of scientists who specialize in different disciplines, you need samples selected by humans to be returned to earth (which robots can do, but not as effectively), and a human needs companionship during such a long trip. Going to Mars is not just about getting someone there, to say we've made it, but to lay the groundwork for scientific exploration, colonization, and resource exploitation.

Such limited thinking didn't get us to the Moon and back! We should be figuring out how to do the whole mission right. I'm certain people thought the same thing when first considering sending someone to the moon!

Why not send the means to get off Mars and back to earth on a separate mission, either before or after you send a man (or woman). On trips to the moon the main ship remained in orbit while another ship landed and returned the astronauts.

I'm sure if you ask around you will find plenty of people who can come up with ideas that will work!

Outdoors safety courses emphasize the importance of hiking with a buddy, who can help you in an emergency. We are thinking of sending a man alone to Mars? It's a death sentence. One accident or medical condition and who is going to help him? Solitary confinement is a tough sentence, that leads to depression and madness. Confined on Mars, millions of miles from the next person will leave us one unhappy Martian. I agree robots are cheaper, require less life support and no moral issues of abandonment.

The bigger question is that with our country 9 trillion dollars in debt, and 47 million Americans have no heath insurance why on Earth ( or Mars) would we want to spent more billions to explore a place that cannot benefit us in the least?

not a good analogy at all Mist.

for 1 thing , the quest for man to fly had benefits that were immediate for humanity in general , eg ; once we actually had airplanes that were somewhat reliable (which were themselves foreseeable by most engineers and scientists of the early 20th century) the first thing we did was employ them for useful purposes such as carrying the mail/medicine ,transport over otherwise non negotiable terrain ,aerial cartography ,etc.

and whats the immediate usefulness of a man on mars? uniting the planet? Haw! unlike early airplanes and aviation technology , todays engineers and scientists cant even foresee or imagine the basic technical advances needed to make the basics of a mission to mars (and back) a plausible effort in the first place,not now or even in the near future ,according to them anyway .

so it can be done...thats never a particularly good reason to do anything . i dont see humanity gaining alot from one man (or even a colony) on mars. at least not anything nearly like the ability to fly has given mankind.

robotics and such can largely do the same things as humans ,much more efficiently ,they are ethically easy to replace and without worry in many other respects as well ,compared to the human counterpart that is.

I second the nomination to send George W. Bush!

SCREW MARS... if this is going to be a one way mission... lets send them into the sun... way cooler and think about how many people would watch and they could load the ship with fireworks and time it for 4th of july and we could all jump up and down waving little american flags!

Paul Carpenter
Why do you say that there is no benefit?

Maybe if we called it "homesteading" instead of a one way death mission it would stand a better chance of happening. Maybe even send along a tent and some light weight furniture. lol.

I honestly believe we should wait on this. Technology as it is won't help us, and neither will the current affairs of the world. All this will do is create yet another conflict and Mars will become something to fight over.

And as for this article...it could use some improvement. The tone is horribly biased, it seems. That's just what I think.

I thought there would be many more people who would be very interested to participate even though it is a one-way mission. My husband and I talk about this all the time and would both go in a heartbeat. We dream about going into space and could care less if we ever come back to this planet. We are so fascinated with outer space and what it holds that we don't give staying on Earth permanently a second thought. We're ready to move on to new frontiers. More than anything we simply think it is fascinating.

Some immediate candidates for the one-way trip come to mind. For example, (1) Hillary Clinton; (2) B. Hussein Obama; (3) Harry Reid; (4) Howard Dean; (5) Jack Murtha; (6) Nancy Pelosi; (7) Charlie Rangel; (8) Bill Clinton; (9) Jimmy Carter; (10) Chuck Schumer; (11) Jim Webb; (12) Barbara Boxer; or (13) Diane Feinstein.

I think my point is clear. Any chance to send any of these idiots above to space, forever, would greatly benefit our nation.

I'll be your huckleberry. Who knows? I might outlive the other 6 billion (minus 1) if things keep going the way they are now...

A Sun trip might work. Don't worry about being burned up. We will just make sure we leave at night.

Why send a human..the Japanese are perfecting the humanoid robot, and we could use their expertise.

It seems they are pretty advanced..serving tea, climing steps, directing traffic.

Why not send a bunch of their humanoid robots to Mars and have them build a space station- then we can send a human after the station is built and operating.

I don't know where these engineers come from, but we need to work smart not hard.

This is unethical and would not be done. This guy loses credibility even suggesting it. And what does it prove? That we can send someone and not return him. Frankly, that is failing the missions. Not going at all and failing the mission are the same thing. I think we can afford to wait until we can succeed at the mission.

The idea that you can explore the galaxy without risk and death is ludicrous. People risk their lives every day for no more then the exhilleration of the risk itself.

If Columbus and other explorers had the same mentality when regarding the vastness of our oceans then there would be no place called America.

No risk no reward, folks.

There's the followup mission too- "Man on the Sun in 2021"... stay tuned...

Sending a mission to Mars, in this day and age, would be a GROSS waste of money, resources, and manpower. There is so much to be addressed right here on earth that the money and manpower would be FAR BETTER spent working on. NASA = KEY MEMBER OF THE US MILITARY COMPLEX

I think Mr. Mclane should be first in line. We could send all the stupid like him to Mars. I am employed at a NASA sight and I don't know anyone who would consider a suicide mission successful. We know we can get a vehicle there whats the point of having it manned if there is no possibility of a return? Mr. Mclane is an embarrasment to all his collegues in the agency;past, present and future. NASA values life and while many in the pursuit of space exploration are willing to RISK their lives, I don't believe there are any who would condone the needless SACRIFICE you suggest.

Sounds like this numbskull totally missed the point of the Apollo program. Of course there was pioneer spirit. There was no shortage of daring, ambition, courage or vision. BUT... there was never, EVER a question about the crew's return. The US public would never accept sending astronauts into space on a suicide mission. Even the Russians weren't crazy enough to send a capsule to the moon if there was no chance to get the crew back. It was always, ALWAYS part of the plan that the crew should travel to the moon and then return from their journey. If they couldn't solve the problem of how to get the crew back, the journey simply WOULDN'T HAPPEN. The author of that article is therefore clearly an idiot.

I think it is a good idea we would get a lot of imformation!!!

Taking calculated risks is one thing. Committing government sanctioned suicide is another.

This proposal is baloney. If we can build a vehicle that can take a person to the moon, and to Mars (with all that it entails), we can build it to return that person to Earth. Sending an astronaut on a one-way trip to Mars would be senseless. Why don't we just cremate one and send his/her ashes, and avoid the need for life support on the outward journey?

This proposal would not unify the world any more than the moon landings or ISS have done. I'm sure, however, that we would experience collective regret if we went through with this.

The idea is to enable more people to go into space, not fewer. We're on a track to do that, now (not fast enough). Sending one person to Mars on a one way mission would be nothing more than a stunt.

Decades ago Kennedy's speech included the phrase "… landing a man on the moon, and returning him safely to Earth". The limiting factor we face now is not lack of technical talent, nor bravery, nor confidence. It's money. We want to go back into space to explore and to stay. This stunt that Mr. McClane describes would do little or nothing to create forward progress in fulfilling that Vision - and it might conceivably be detrimental. We have matured as a country in regard to our space program. We now view it as a journey, and do not impatiently long for a single accomplishment. We have to use our resources wisely to build a sustainable infrastructure. We should start simply, and accomplish what we can early, but we also need to do this in a way that nurtures commercial enterprises, in order to garner economic benefits, which would solidify long-term support.

There's nothing wrong with sacrifice. There are very few things or events of human greatness that didn't require blood and sacrifice to make it happen.

Let's get honest here. If human lives really mattered, I mean really, then the Darfur Genocide, as the American Government calls it, would've been dealt with long ago.

If there is someone looking to advance human knowledge by taking a one way trip to mars I say--if they're qualified--let them. While there are plenty of emotional reasons why people are offended by the 'one way trip' idea there are very few logical ones.

More on the lighter side...Dont you think that we should as(true concerned americans) be more focused on identifying and alarming police of the potential islamic terrorists in our own society here! Think about it!

You could have a point there NASA. Instead of having another Nazca we could send the guys that are political screw-ups. Just think of it! AND they never came back!

I'd rather seem them expand the space station and set up a colony on the moon before we send anyone on a one-way trip to Mars. At least with a moon base, we'd stand a chance of rescuing them if something went wrong. Or they could get a working Earth-to-Orbit/Orbit-to-Station plane that works.

Hey NASA while I finally have you here: Can you get one of your guys to double back so I can get a full story on why we never went back to the moon? Also I really loved your Columbus idea. Very sharp there comet. Very sharp indeed.I really got the flashes when I saw that petrified guy in the mars photo. Man, then I saw it all. It rhymed with the thimble somebody found imbedded in a coal mine 5 miles under the ground. Like those little ruins places? They were cute. Where did all da water go? Mr. Big Mouth and "honey" no doubt. Have a great day NASA. See you at 10.

Isn't there that guy Robert Zubrin whose work on a manned mission has been acknowledged by quite a few of his peers? Or do i watch too much of the Nat Geo channel?

Hey NASA! One more comment. Ever see how Erik Von Danken (sp) has-the Gods left never to return. Boy is that alot of you know what! They landed and the natives came out of the jungle and ate them. Then they used their ships for cool relief carvings of Mayan Indian chief sitting in ship. They did find those airplane models scaled to size. Where did the time go?

I think this idea has merit, actually. A carefully planned trip would place a human on the Martian surface, alone for possibly decades. But within those decades the technology will improve, thus increasing the likelihood of getting another mission to the surface, either to colonize or return, carrying the original explorer. The idea works even better if the original crew consists of two members. The information sent back from Mars would also help speed up the next mission. Communication to earth also remains constant, so "alone" may not feel so alone. I don't think it's that farfetched, really.

life is a death sentence

hey Mike, heres a logical reason for not doing such a mission you (and your obviously gigantic intellect) may have missed....

A MAN/MANNED MARS MISSON COSTS AN INSANE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND EFFORT , WITH HARDLY A CHANCE FOR ANY NOTEWORTHY GAINS TO SHOW FOR IT , MOST EXPERTS AGREE ON THAT.... AND MIKE, THE $$ AND EFFORT COULD/SHOULD BE SPENT ON MORE PRESSING/IMPORTANT NEEDS OF HUMANITY,LIKE SOLVING THE ENERGY CRISIS GLOBAL WARMING AND MAKING MORE NUTRITIOUS FOOD AVAILABLE TO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH DAILY ,TODAY EVEN !!

read up on maslows' theory of human needs, (which is social logic Mike) and guess what ?

nobody really cares whats on mars/going on on mars while they personally are starving ,with no water and without a roof over their head(s) ergo space exploration is not one of the basic needs ,and until we are doing better meeting those basic needs for more people on a day to day basis i say that manned space exploration is huge waste/mismanagement of time and funds and effort ,and so do the experts Mike.

Why dont we just all get together..like 1000 of us...go down to Area 51 pull the flying saucer out of it's secret underground hanger and head on over to mars and unite the world!!!

One benefit everybody has missed about colonizing Mars: it's insurance for humanity. If something happens to earth, the human race will not be extinct. Or has this already happened once? Where's my Mission To Mars DVD...

That would be great. One man, one dog. Life would be good. Send a new ship every 26 months...bringing new tech, supplies and people. Let's do it! Can you imagine the marketing?!?

Let the astronaut take along a backpack containing RDX to blow up a crater or two, and the entire Pakistani nation may volunteeer. We'd donate to send them too. Why send just one? Send all the "fedayeen". One small leap for the IQ of Mars, one GIANT stride for the IQ of Earth. If they can burn a specially-made replica of Old Glory, they'd take their friends along too. Remember the guy who lit his own hair on fire trying to burn the US flag in Lahore?

I would go. What am I missing here on earth? Humans have managed to turn this planet in crap, I might as well go out doing something cool.

This is freakin crazy! who would want to risk their life, family, friends, and everything else that is worth staying on this planet to go to Mars? this is so stupid! no one wants to go on a one-way trip to Mars. I f McLane is so crazy about it, then why doesn't he go. I mean he is old and he is not losing anyone going to Mars and besides if he goes to Mars he will know he died fulfilling his dream! Personally, I would never go to some creepy planet alone, regardless the award!

stop wasting my taxes on pipe dreams that have NO profits at the end. Columbus sail to find passage to China, bring back spices, and make a fortune. He could give a rats ### over Cuba or anything else that didn't make him rich. Give that money back to the taxpayers, the rightfull owners.

As the man said, "Nobody gets out alive." Or to echo Kenneth, life itself is a death sentence. The only issue would be in the time span. Are they thinking of sustaining a single human being on the surface of Mars for a normal lifespan, or six months and "poof"?

Remember the 1960's movie Robinson Crusoe On Mars? One man on the surface and the other orbiting above {Adam West}.The orbiter crashes and Robinson Survives on the planet alone. Until he is helped with Friday a martian!

This planet, OUR earth needs OUR attention! NOT Mars! If Mr. McLane wants to go, as long as he spends his OWN money....GO! But not a single cent of our taxes or Government monies should go toward this!

Imagine...you land on the red planet. Only you.

No internet.
No itunes.
Damn cellpone *shakeshake* no reception!
Man, do I want a pepperoni pizza.
Hey, this is sand. I can't grow food on sand.

Three weeks later you are stark raving mad, and you've renamed the Mars Observer unit you found "Wilson", and you take it on walks "Cmon boy! Atta Boy!", much to the intense displeasure of JPL's scientists.

James McLane III has to be employed with the Bush Adminastration,,,,,,right????LOL

Suicide by Exploration......what a hopeless thought!

Obama and his wife should go and he can then set up a new utopia one that perhaps his wife can be proud of...

Where do I sign up? Terrorists, taxes, pollution, crazy people---a one way trip out of here to explore space--who could ask for a better way to go?

Face it. It is the height of hypocrisy and futility to pour vast human resources into trying to make a dead planet a living one in the event that we turn this living planet into a dead one (which we are in the process of doing). If we can't even manage this incredibly designed and intricately balanced ecosphere, how in the world are we going to re-create one somewhere else from scratch? They couldn't even make "Biosphere 2" work, a project that was never actually independent from this planet (biosphere #1). Besides, the real problem, as illustrated by that fiasco, was selfish human nature. Humans can run (even to Mars) but they cannot hide from their own inherently broken selves. Even though they possess the most complex supercomputer known (the human brain), a deadly virus has been downloaded into each mind. The only hope for mankind is for the Master Programmer to intervene. Get rid of the virus, take us off this terminally ill planet that we have ruined, wipe the world clean and start over again.

I can think of a few people I'd like to volunteer for this program.

i think humanity does not deserve or has not earned the right to go to other planets and stars yet.
First we have to tackle the big problems: war, famine,global warming,to much people on earth,terrorism, crime ,injustice,poverty ,the limited energy resources,lethal or chronick illnesses and so on...
And , if we have solved all that and more,then we will be worthy to go to the stars.Do not get me wrong, i love space-travel and i am a life-long amateur astronomer.
But i will not set my own dreams above the good off all others.Space-travel is a luxury that we can not afford right now.Besides, i strongly doubt if going to Mars will ' unite' humanity.

My choice for whom NASA should draft to go:
George Dumbo-Yeah Bush
Hillary Clinton

What a colossal waste of money. What do we get from NASA besides worthless bragging rights? Imagine what could be done with that money if you put it towards medical research or helping the less fortunate or countless other ways to help society. What a waste...

There's absolutely no doubt that if 'human' life is to survive in perpetuity, we need to leave Earth and start a civilization on another planet. The astrophyicists prove that human life will end here. But, Mars? What a waste of our limited resources! It cannot sustain human life. We'd better focus our assets on discovering a 'liveable' planet. And, know that it may take 1,2,3 or more 'generations' of space travel time to get there. There will be no need for a roundtrip ticket.

Well, maybe two.

The man who wrote this article doesn't have the technical background to write such an article. I agree that going to Mars at this time is rediculously preposterous based on the weak technology NASA has. The thing he says that shows his blinding ignorance is the concept of colonizing Mars. We can't colonize the Amazon so how are we going to do it on Mars where there is no air, no food and no cable TV? These people who talk about teraforming are morons. The magnetic field of Mars will not hold an atmosphere. Mars lost it's atmosphere because of it's weak magnetic field. Create all the oxygen you want - it will all blow off into space due to the solar wind. There will NEVER be a Mars like Earth again. It may have been at one time but it will not happen again and while I am on the subject Earth will be like Mars one day. Mars is however a very tantilizing prize. What do you want to bet there are precious metals there? Technically, the first nation there with a human can lay claim to the entire planet since it is one large land mass and a country like the US has the technology to put space-based weapons in orbit around Mars and in-between to destroy poachers. Do you know what the real prize is on Mars? Super radio-active materials. Materials unlike anything known on this Earth. Monsterously destructive elements. Screw the gold - we want better weapons. THAT IS WHY WE ARE GOING. It has nothing to do with promoting mankind. Support your local NASA masta.

What better symbol for the Bush years, than a long, hopeless, single-minded voyage?

Send Bush. No one will miss his departure and what better way to rid the Earth of his shadow.

I second GW! Or maybe Hillary! Since she won't be the first woman president, maybe she can go to mars.

Can we send Cheney, too?

There is absolutely nothing we need to know about Mars that requires the deliberate sacrifice of life. Absolutely nothing.

Why does everybody think of USA as the first option, let some billionaire russian become the first man on mars, it would save us time and money.