Subscription Center
Sep 2, 2009 01:47 PM | 42
Landing humans on Mars is a completely achievable feat with current technology—if you are okay with the idea of a one-way ticket, points out physicist and Scientific American columnist Lawrence Krauss in an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times .
The problem today isn't the launch capabilities or the guidance systems or the navigation. It is the energetic particles from the sun, which can rip apart DNA. Space travelers returning home from a Mars mission would soon die from this radiation poisoning, if they managed to survive the experience at all. A protective shield would simply be too massive to be practical; assuming no technological breakthroughs, the shield would weigh around 400 tons—much too massive for today's heavy-lift vehicles.
Krauss notes that a one-way trip would be more sensible. (But like most scientists, Krauss thinks that robots can accomplish as much as humans can in terms of doing actual science in space.) We could send senior-citizen volunteers to the Red Planet, where they could spend their final months conducting experiments, laying the groundwork for future permanent settlements, and digging their own graves.
The idea of a one-way trip has been kicked around for years. I first became aware of it some 10 years ago, when SciAm editor George Musser (currently installing solar panels on his home) brought it up at one of our story meetings. As our resident Mars-ophile, George said he would go once and for all, without hesitation—and he was the only one on staff at the time who would. An informal poll of 12 others on staff this morning revealed two other yays, albeit with the general qualification of not having much to live for on Earth.
As news editor, I would certainly appreciate having a Mars bureau, even if for just a couple of months. Imagine the tweets during a voyage of possibly 200-plus days in an enclosed environment with the same small group. Day 65: Main toilet is broken—again! Day 110: I should have smuggled more beer on board. Day 175: I can't believe I'm going to be buried with these people.
A round-trip Mars mission might be achievable, though—not with faster rockets, but with biomedical advances. Drugs that safely combat the effects of radiation poisoning seem to be the only way to make a voyage back home feasible, as Eugene N. Parker points out in an article in the March 2006 issue and in a Science Talk podcast interview.
Illustration of astronauts on Mars from NASA
More News Blog: Next: First gray wolf legally killed in U.S. after nearly 40-year ban Previous: Music to Monkeys' Ears? Try Metallica, or the Metro
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
42 Comments
Add CommentOne way emigration to dangerous, unknown lands is not unusual in human history. It only seems unusual to us because we have lost touch with the impulses that drove our ancestors. For most of those walking out of Africa in several waves of human emigration, it was a one-way trip. More recently, for many early emigres to North America, a one-way trip was the goal. I would volunteer for this trip. And I would take my children. And I would bet on h. sapiens to beat the odds and build a worthwhile civilization wherever he or she goes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have two questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, if the trip from Mars to Earth would surely kill anyone attempting it then why would the trip there not?? Maybe just reading the article twice wasn't enough times and I just missed that part.
Second, where do I sign up??
The article talks about a "one way trip". That means the trip there does kill you. Radiation poisoning. So while you would make the trip you would die over a small period of months from the radiation. Not a pleasant way to go I might add, based upon the things that have happened here, so this concept seems a bit crazy to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm no rocket scientist, but I did read Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars many years ago. I think Mr. Krauss hasn't read Zubrin's material thoroughly enough. The argument about radiation during transit was basically settled in his book -- Zubrin argued quite convincingly, I thought, that a capsule surrounded by a 1m or so of water was more than enough to prevent all but the worst radiation for the duration of the trip. I don't recall the exact numbers of course, but his conclusion was that with sufficient (and achievable) amounts of water shielding, Mars travellers could travel there *and* back with a total rad exposure only 2-3 times that of a commercial airline pilot's lifetime exposure. Certainly not a death sentence by any means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides, the water needs to be brought along anyways.. until in situ water production is online at the Mars outpost at least.
It seems that the same tired old arguments keep getting brought up against Mars travel, and radiation exposure is the one that I hear the most.
I would love to go, if I could bring my pets for good company. I am a pretty good writer, whether for tech manuals or for entertainment, so I would be useful on a mars mission. I guess pay-per-view would be out of the question. It would be terribly fun until monotany sets in. I want to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Burners
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you're missing something though - a one-way trip to Mars is _currently_ a signed death certificate. Sure our ancestors took one-way trips knowingly, some might even have assumed it was a sure-fire way to go and die. I doubt, however, that mass emigration would ever have occurred if EVERY traveller knew their fate would shortly manifest in death.
That would be like suggesting mass emigration from dry land to the ocean floor, with travelers taking a few scuba tanks with them. Sure, they could get there, and yes they could do something useful (perhaps) once there... but if it was a one-way trip they would surely die down there. No chance for a sustainable underwater colony just yet, without taking that 400-ton (let's call it 400 tons of buoyancy in this example?) water-shield with them.
On the other hand, once a tractable plan is drafted for sustained life on Mars, I'd bet a large sum that many people would suddenly reflect on our ancestral curiosities and wander forth as man has done so successfully before.
-bit
"But like most scientists, Krauss thinks that robots can accomplish as much as humans can in terms of doing actual science in space."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse. Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity showed us that this is not the case. The rovers were only able to dig 4 inches down and 1-2inches wide into the Martian soil, while many astrobiologists think that microbes that evidence of current or fossilized life would be much deeper than that. In addition, these rovers have to be preprogrammed which deeply limits what they can do once on the planet. Machine parts also malfunction in Martian dust storms while humans can... we don't have personal solar panels to worry about.
Yikes too many typos. Should've read that over before submitting. I meant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:But like most scientists, Krauss thinks that robots can accomplish as much as humans can in terms of doing actual science in space."
False. Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity showed us that this is not the case. The rovers were only able to dig 4 inches down and 1-2inches wide into the Martian soil, while many astrobiologists think that evidence of living or fossilized life would be much deeper than that. In addition, these rovers have to be preprogrammed which deeply limits what they can do once on the planet. Machine parts also malfunction in Martian dust storms while humans would not... we don't have personal solar panels to worry about.
@bitflung
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, I did not miss the point. If Krauss assumes chemical propulsion, metallic shielding, Hohmann orbits, above ground habitats on the Martian surface, then his conclusions are correct. But this is not the only way to get to Mars. With Chang-Diaz VASIMR propulsion, water shielding, direct transfer orbits and below-ground habitats, the trip times are shorter and the exposure numbers are different. But since neither Krauss' Mars mission nor mine exist today, it is probably a little premature to say that "a one way trip to Mars is_currently_a signed death certificate." If we apply ourselves to this problem, my guess is that we can solve it.
exactly!!!! That same thought came to my mind as well. Not only that. I started thinking how did Neil Armstrong and his crew went to moon and back. Something is amiss in all this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConvert the space station to a Vasimir powered slow boat space liner in a continuous Mars to Earth to Mars orbital path. Mars or Earth bound cargo or crew would match velocity in high power shuttle craft to catch the ride. Better still find a carbonaceous asteroid of a suitable size, and equip it as needs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is typical of the mentallity these days it seems. Lets over analyze and conduct an operational risk management consortium on any endevour that might be dangerous. In the mean time nothing gets accomplished anywhere, thus dies the tradition of great human achievement.
Where would we be if the greatest explorers and minds of the past thought " I might die if I do this so...., lets ask the commitee." Did Chuck Yeager ask questions before he climbed into the X-1.
Mars will end the manned exploration of space myth. We then will create the robots that will exceed the abilities of Rover etc. Human bodies are frail. In the end what is the difference between experiencing something in virtual reality and 'experiencing' a planet in a huge protective suited surface visit, while living in an underground habitat? The answer the quality of the VR due to higher investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could also send criminals to Mars. Super-intelligent criminals like Lex Luther. So they could conduct those experiments for you. And kill two birds with one stone by ridding the world of comic book villains, while advancing human knowledge for the rest of us comic book readers. Plus, there is that neat aspect of getting to meet John Carter and the incomparable Dejha Thoris, or however you spell her name (I never paid much attention; I was too busy gazing at her imaginary bosom). Of course, there is one drawback: no insane asylums on Mars. So where would super-intelligent comic book villains live while conducting experiments and slowly but surely dying of radiation poisoning? It is a difficulty that could test the high-powered problem-solving ability of a Sherlock Holmes. And I'll ask him the next time I see him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEgad! This will be part of the Public Option! Notify Palin immediately!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also volunteer in a heartbeat, even though I'm over 30 years away from being an official senior citizen, and I have a successful science career, a wonderful girlfriend and a great family!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLife is an adventure and I when I'm 90 years old I want to look back on my life with the knowledge the I gave humanity more than I took from it. What a great way to spend a life, expanding scientific knowledge and laying the foundation for the expansion of humanity beyond its home planet!
Yeah, because mankind is clearly incapable of technological progress in the field of robotics, and there's absolutely no way to communicate with robots to give them new instructions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Rolling eyes.)
@meredithperry, I don't think a person would last nearly as long on mars as Spirit and Opportunity given the same resources (read that as energy, time and money).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In addition, these rovers have to be preprogrammed which deeply limits what they can do once on the planet." whereas humans would find living on mars highly intuitive and could be sent with no training at all.
"Machine parts also malfunction in Martian dust storms while humans would not," you are aware that they have been there for almost five years now right? Also, unless my doctor hasn't told me something, humans haven't attained immortality yet. There is still disease and injury. I can't imagine that you would stand up to a Martian sand storm as well as these robots.
Also, have you heard of something called Moore's Law? It suggests technology gets better and better every year. So given the Spirit and Opportunity were designed likely around 2000-2002, I think we could probably do a lot better now. You can pack a lot of scientific equipment into the space taken up by a person, their life support systems and their provisions. Humans do have an impressive sensor suite though but it is really hard to download anything from them.
Ultimately, the reason to send people is PR. The drama of people risking their lives in exploration is what generates an audience. Knowledge is ok, but people want to make sure their tax dollars go towards quality entertainment.
How about advances in shielding technology? The earth is protecting by the magnetosphere. Create a magnetosphere to protect the ship and the area where the astronauts are working. http://ciencia.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2925/spaceship-force-field
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to go to Mars or any other place in space. You need a true space drive and a real life support system. Roman candle (rocket science ) technology and throw away life support is not good enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA real EMF drive that can lift It's self can maintain one "G" acceleration, 32 feet per second per second. Acceleration - deceleration how many days to Mars?
Anyone willing to put their money or time where their mouth is?
Tax money hell!! this is a real invention by a real inventor not an armchair poser. This can be done for the cost of a small airliner and be fairly safe.
So you think a capsule with a 1m thick blanket of water would solve the problem. Water weighs 1000kg per cubic metre. A spherical capsule with a radius of 3m surrounded by a water blanket 1m thick would require about 155 tonnes of water. Doesnt sound so feasible anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're all going to die.
I would make the case that it's far more important what we do between now and then. How and when we die is pretty irrelevant in comparison.
This whole argument rests upon the false premise of the LNT theory of radiation. It doesn't exist. Long term exposure to cosmic radiation isn't going to kill you and won't significantly increase your risk of cancer. Humans are self-reparing mechanisms with extensive self-correcting mechanisms in the DNA replication machinery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, the idea of using chemical energy for interplanetary travel is ridiculous anyway. But, since we're nothing but a world full of chicken littles anymore there no chance of using nuclear.
In other words: to sum up: We're never going to Mars. The kind of spirit and moral fiber that produced such endeavors is gone from the human soul. We're more interested in forcing our rich neighbor to pour milk into the teat so that we may suckle.
I don't mind dying for science, but I'll be danged if I'm going to go out as a ditchdigger on the red planet. I did enough shoveling when I was a kid back on the farm in Ohio!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut on a serious note, can you just imagine how this would be played in the press? If the demise of a pop star sends newspapers and TV networks into paroxysms of maudlin reflection, what would they do with the very public and drawn-out death of a space hero? Many on earth would want to change places with the near-departed just to get away from the 24-hr bombardment. Did he eat his Metamucil today? Will the Depends supply hold out? Yikes!
So the big attraction to this exhorbitantly costly mission is to dig some holes in hoping to find some fossils? All this to satisfy the gnawing conscience of evolutionists, hoping to finally find real justification for their anti-God fantasies? As of now, this isn't exploration with a purpose, it's asking the taxpayer to fund a 'climbing a mountain because it's there' mission. So they get there, then what? I foresee a big anti-climactic 'buyer's remorse'. The money would be better spent cleaning up stray space garbage and keep our satellites safe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, I will volunteer. What a Fantastic Voyage ! Imagine, setting foot on another planet, no human on earth except for a very few astronauts (the moon) hav ever done that. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mars is a lot more earthlike ( and has breathable atmosphere and lifeforms) than most authorities care to admit. I'm in. I'm sick of Earth and it's competitive ways. Look up my phone number and email on the iternet if you are serious about volunteers. PS I'm fertile, send me a brown wife as part of the deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey tell me more. Give me a website address where I can get more info.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers.
Why mess up a perfectly good planet? Haven't we already
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismessed up one? And seniors, without meds and doctors?
How cruel. Just as bad as Obamacare and VA care for the
soldiers. Life not worth living so we'll just send you off to
mars. I think they need healthy, strapling young scientists to go
there. They know what it needs to set the stage for future development.
By making the trip one-way, you have the extra capacity for the necessary shielding. That's how I read it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispeanutbutter, we're very interested in yours and all inquiries: please send Mars one-way Crew Member resumes with a 500-1000 word essay summarizing your reasons for committing to a one-way no-return mission to Mars as well as what you feel you would contribute to this endeavor, to niligoat@nilifossae.com --- please include "1-way" in the title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you,
PLF
NiliSelecTeam
To counter the radiation problem for the Earth Mars trip, why not look at diverting a smallist asteriod to an orbit that repeatedly intersects both planets (Without slamming into them). A space ship can then hide in the shadow of this asteriod while tracking to and from mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The eternal sunshine of the spotless mind" is a phrase that comes to mind when I read the optimism of some of the ready volunteers ready to sign their own (and their children's) death warrant. It's great to express hope over humanity's ability to triumph over adversity, but when that innovative nature comes up with a 400 ton shield as the only option and states that it is not viable, well where's the hope in that. And cobra, have you thought about the complexity of getting a "smallish asteroid" to repeat orbit between the Earth and Mars while they track their orbits around the Sun? Suddenly 400 tons of shield looks like child's play.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5 reasons to settle the Moon first, before Mars.
Moons lower gravity well makes space economically viable.
Once the (very expensive) moon base is established, the moon would be a cheaper place from which to launch *everything* into space. Just think of all the satellites we already launch from earth. Imagine all that being launched from the moon? Think of the $21 billion the Japanese are proposing to spend on Space solar power , just for a mere 1 gigawatt! (Future solar-thermal plants here on earth could be a 10th that price). Solar power from space is a wonderful idea but a terrible price! Everything we need to construct space solar power is on the moon. Putting a permanent base on the moon would allow cheaper solar power from space!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon#Advantages
A permanent Moon base would allow us to construct a permanent L5 space colony! It would be protected from solar radiation by thick meters of moon rock launched by rail-gun or Mass driver .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver
3. An L5 colony can then be either stationed at the L5 point and be a viable economic zone in its own right, constructing unique items in zero gravity environments (at the middle, while citizens of the L5 colony lived in near-earth comfort in the rings).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
OR, if Gen4 nuclear power (or even fusion power) arrives as good as advertised, then surely an ONeil colony itself could become a slow-boat trip to Mars? Just load it up with enough chemical fuel (from the moon), enough old nuclear warheads to power the Gen4 reactors, enough engineers and scientists, and send the self-sustaining colony off to colonize Mars. Sure this approach might take decades, but think of the slow but steady benefits once it is achieved! Who knows what other spin-off technologies we might all be enjoying if we start on this now.
4. If fusion technology ever comes along, then one approach for fuel here on earth might be Helium-3 mined from the moon.
http://tinyurl.com/2merbx
Do we have to go to Mars now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace adventure has been a real costly affair. The need for its continuation ought to be re-scrutinized and reassessed in this difficult time of economic downturn.
Instead of burning billions of dollars with no immediate benefit to the general well-beings of mankind in the next few decades, it might be better to channel the money to researches that would help to alleviate the suffering of a billion of people in abject poverty.
Perhaps finding new renewable, cheap and clean energy sources could be given the top priority.
Actually, I have a patent pending on how to shorten this trip considerably, so as to allow a four-month stay and then a quick return trip. The big problem is deceleration so as to be snagged at the destination point and I have solved it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this not the right approach. It would be wiser to build a very large ship in orbit for solar system exploration . Such a large structure would provide a minimum of protection against radiation and solar flares , would be almost completly autonomous and allow individual fullfilling social interaction because of the presence of a large diverse and mixed crew. It could mount remote search and rescue operations in case of landings going wrong, could provide basic infrastructure manufacturing and delivery. And although it would be initially extremely expensive and a global effort, it would be amortized by centuries of use and could eventually be retired as a deep space solar orbiting station in a millenium or two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnything else would be a suicide mission...
@Burners, this one-way trip from Earth to Mars to is different from that from Africa to North America. The first one leads you to die. The latter one gets you in to the land of opportunities. So, it would unwise to mix them up. Jokes apart, I can think of volunteering the mission Mars too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.marketingweek.co.uk/opinion/are-the-foundations-of-marketing-solid-enough-to-withstand-attack?/3015782.article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfessor Byron Sharp's book 'How Brands Grow...what marketers don't know' attacks marketing 'knowledge' by providing scientific evidence to back up his claims
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/opinion/are-the-foundations-of-marketing-solid-enough-to-withstand-attack?/3015782.article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfessor Byron Sharp's new book 'How Brands Grow...what marketers don't know' attacks marketing 'knowledge' by providing scientific evidence to back up his claims
This is a great solution for most critical problem facing humanity: overpopulation. The principal issue with launching excess humanity to another planet is the incredibly poor return on investment. The most cost effective solution is simply to produce extremely large scale 'rocket ships' that explode on the launchpad. This program will attract participants willing to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer...watch it...next you'll be proposing soylent green;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne Williamson - Yeah, I know. Just kidding: the problem is that it's not funny!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this