Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
- Mars Rover: Stuck in the Mud
- Tranquility Base
- NASA's Ares 1-X Test: The View From Above
- The Yes Men
- The Missing Link -- Not
- Moon Crash Kicked Up Plume After All
- Moon Crash: Where's the Water?
- Green Apple: Firm is Latest to Leave U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Recovery.gov: Your Tax Dollars at Work
- Climate: Power Companies Quit U.S Chamber of Commerce
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
One-Way Flight to Mars? A Soldier Volunteers
May 28, 2008 12:07 PM
The idea, to say the least, was provocative. Back in March Nancy Atkinson wrote a piece for Universe Today about a retired NASA engineer named Jim McLane, who suggested a way to jump-start human settlement of Mars: go before we're sure how to get back. Her original piece is HERE, and the post I wrote about it is HERE.
"When we eliminate the need to launch off Mars, we remove the mission’s most daunting obstacle," McLane told her. He said it would not be a suicide mission, but that risks are necessary when you do great things. "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."
Nancy has now sent me a note to say that amid the hundreds of responses the story got, one stands out -- from a soldier stationed in Afghanistan, SFC William H. Ruth III. He says he and his comrades in the 101st Airborne Division are "ready and willing to go."
SFC Ruth wrote, "While reading Jim McLane and Nancy Atkinson’s thoughts on Space Colonization, I started to realize that we ‘ALL’ have lost our way. We have become so consumed by petty differences and dislikes of others that we all have forgotten our pre destiny of something better."
He continued, "Will we falter at a hint of death or danger? Or will we do now what so many in ‘ALL’ of the world’s history has done before us. NASA of all thinking societies should understand this. Would there even be an America or NASA if a man named Columbus had not pursued a dangerous and possibly deadly voyage to a new world? He certainly had to consider whether or not he would ever return home to see all those he loved so dearly. But what of those aboard his ships, those that left Spain knowing that they would never return. Those few that willingly risked all for the chance at a new world and a new future, could they have possibly known what effects they would have had on the future due to their sacrifices? Now can we have enough vision to see our destiny, can we, for a moment, see past our petty differences of race and religion to see…peace, prosperity and possibly a new world."
Nancy Atkinson's followup story is HERE, and she's posted "A Soldier's Perspective" from Ruth HERE. Ruth struck up a correspondence with a Spanish journalist, Javier Yanes of a newspaper called Publico, and he forwarded Ruth's message.
"I fully agree with NASA and others that it is completely dangerous and potentially deadly for anyone who sets out on this voyage," Ruth wrote. "But since when has that ever stopped anyone?"
May 28, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (45)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
it's a fact we HAVE to move to the stars. Either wwe move or humanity will die. We only have finite resources here on earth,with increasing population growth,civil wars, etc. It will only get worse
Posted by: renegadeterry | May 28, 2008 6:37:07 PM
Does Mars have a strong enough magnetic core to hold an atmosphere and maintain the conditions necessary to terraform it?
Posted by: Shoemaker | May 28, 2008 7:13:03 PM
Shoemaker, uh, I believe the answer is no, Mars does not have a strong enough magnetic field to protect an atmosphere form the solar wind. The weak gravity does not help either. Terraforming Mars will probably never be a realistic option. Domes or underground shelters would probably be the only way to provide a lot of long term living space. A one-way trip does not have to be fatal as long as we send enough supplies and have the capability to produce most if not all of the necessities once we got there. I would go in a heartbeat even if I knew I would not be coming back.
Posted by: B K | May 28, 2008 8:33:34 PM
Our astronauts came back from the moon using computors with the power of a cheap calculator. I would think we could go to mars and back if we really wished to do so...
Posted by: luther | May 28, 2008 10:39:03 PM
A better analagy might be the pilgrims, as far as suicide? I could die tomorrow-hit by a car or trip and fall down the stairs. To die building the first settlement on Mars? Now that is a way to go out... or maybee we are able to pull it off. Yeah, sign me up.
Posted by: Tanthor | May 28, 2008 11:41:24 PM
too much radiation, they die
Posted by: wolf | May 28, 2008 11:49:38 PM
I don't understand why this is called suicide, if all went well, you'd die of old age like any lucky person on earth does.
Posted by: Lephty | May 29, 2008 1:41:54 AM
This is still all bogus. We need to work out cheaper methods of getting into orbit. Expending a huge amount of money to send one guy to walk around on an icey desert for a little while isn't going to make starting a colony there any easier. Even sending a team isn't going to do much unless you can send enough equipment for them to be self sufficient. That really would cost a fortune. It's much better to focus on building platforms in orbit around earth first. Build up an infrastructure, then start sending humans to Mars. Until then robots will get along a lot better. Mars is dead and empty. It won't have any value until we can bring earth resources to it in bulk.
Posted by: Shaun | May 29, 2008 1:52:09 AM
Look up in the sky its a bird, its a plane....
Posted by: BTL musings | May 29, 2008 3:25:41 AM
This issue again? No matter if there are volunteers, it's a stupid mission to begin with. What will we gain by sending someone on an one-way trip with no means for long term survival or to come home? Just glory? Just to get a person's name in the history books as the first to land on Mars only to die on Mars? Many people in the world will not be motivated to go to Mars if the explorer ends up dead.
Yes, I understand exploration always have its risks, but in space, there is no means for survival if something goes wrong.
I like the notion of human beings leaving our homeworld and venturing out there. Just I like to see people enabling to get back home.
Posted by: GWP | May 29, 2008 7:20:45 AM
Send a prisoner. Or two. Or 10,000.
Posted by: stop2think | May 29, 2008 7:55:44 AM
If we stop destroying our plant this would not be an issue.
Posted by: j West | May 29, 2008 8:46:15 AM
That'll never happen.
Posted by: TSnow27604 | May 29, 2008 9:03:49 AM
Oneway mission? Stunt. I agree with all who have commented that if we don't develop life support systems that can sustain us off this world, we're all going to die. Not maybe. Not we'll see. Not perhaps. We're in a raft(Earth) with finite resources, floating in the middle if the pacific(space), and you continue to add one survivor a day to the raft. You do the math. The first effects are starting to really show up now. So unless we change how we live entirely (highly unlikely without a major war), space is our only salvation. Arthur C Clark knew it, Einstein knew it, Hawking knows it. All this not in the next 500 years but within this century.
Our mind set has to change. To do that we either have it out (war) or we transpose at least parts of humanity abroad in our solar system thus becoming (hopefully) an inspiration to the monkeys back on Earth.
Posted by: Jordan G | May 29, 2008 12:32:40 PM
Pioneering the universe is the only thing that will save mankind, but why not start with the moon first, then mars. Sounds great to me.
Posted by: B Griffin | May 29, 2008 1:40:10 PM
I remember back in high school in the late 80's, NASA had sent packets to us students asking how we would colonize Mars. Why would they do that? I still have the certificate they sent back after student participation.
Posted by: Lily | May 30, 2008 11:46:40 AM
I'd go no problem, be nice if they landed a supply ship first so I could survive long enough to conduct some real science to benefit future missions. About 38,000 Americans on average die every year in car accidents but they're questioning sending a man on a one way ticket to Mars?? For the 1 trillion cost of the Iraq war we could have put a colony on Mars. Our priorities are messed up on this planet.
Posted by: Mike Hawkins | Jun 1, 2008 5:39:18 AM
I get tired of all the humanistic claptrap. Can we realy save ourselves from the human condition? I don't think so. Is running off to another planet realy going to do it? Hardly, rebellion against the Creator only brings us closer to judgement. It is just like the tower of Babel. They thought they were better than God and tried to show it by building a tower. Today we build rockets to go to other planets and ignore the very Creator who made us. We prop up scientific theories based on pseudoscience and mock God. We talk about saving the planet when we need our souls saved by faith in Jesus Christ. I am an advocate of space exploration, but when we turn it into a new religion, which mocks the real Creator, I find it sickening.
Posted by: Eric | Jun 2, 2008 2:11:34 AM
Eric said, "Is running off to another planet realy going to do it? Hardly, rebellion against the Creator only brings us closer to judgement."
Huh? Are you equating exploration and colonization as rebelling against "the creator"? Religious fanaticism is what's going to bring us closer to judgement not expanding our territory and opening up technical possibilities which will benefit mankind. As they did when we went to the moon. Computers, velcro, life support, processor chips, complex programming, medicine, materials science. The list goes on as to the direct benefits we incurred going to the moon. Saving our souls may help us cope, but its not going to make more food, medicine, or fuel to stay warm as our climate changes.
Posted by: Jordan G | Jun 2, 2008 11:26:49 AM
How about focusing on our "not very well" mother earth ? Just another ego-maniac idea from the powers that "soon will not be". Waste of money, time and life.
If they are a looking for an escape route from their self made black hole, try looking within...
It's not rocket science.
Adam (mother natures son)...
Posted by: Adam | Jun 3, 2008 1:56:53 AM
Post a comment
