Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

One-Way to Mars

Scientist and author Lawrence Krauss has written an Op-Ed for the New York Times in which he calls for a one-way trip to Mars to inaugurate the beginnings of human exploration of the Red Planet:

While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return is jarring upon first hearing, the rationale for one-way trips into space has both historical and practical roots. Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway. Give us a century or two and we may turn the whole planet into a place from which many people might be happy to depart.

…If it sounds unrealistic to suggest that astronauts would be willing to leave home never to return alive, then consider the results of several informal surveys I and several colleagues have conducted recently. One of my peers in Arizona recently accompanied a group of scientists and engineers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on a geological field trip. During the day, he asked how many would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space. Every member of the group raised his hand.

It’s an idea that I’ve always thought should be worth considering. The early days of the space program saw test pilots/astronauts willing to submit to huge risks in order to advance our knowledge and abilities – I’m sure many today would be of a similar mindset. And who could resist having their names permanently etched in history as the first humans to settle another planet…

Editor
  1. Why not?
    If I had terminal cancer or something, I would definitely consider it —and I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one.

    It reminds me of that Sci Fi author criticizing the world of Star Wars, what with all the speeders lacking safety belts or the Jedi wielding light sabers without protective goggles or safety gloves. What he failed to realize is that maybe it’s our world the one that’s overly obsessed with safety.
    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

  2. “Colonists and pilgrims
    “Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway.”

    Are things here SO bad that someone would leave for a place with NO atmosphere that makes Antarctica seem like Acapulco, and cannot prove that it has *ever* been capable of harboring life? Dependent on a manufactured air supply (we can’t even make decent *underwear* any more.)

    As I recall, the railroads had to send carpetbaggers to Europe in the 19th century to scare up immigrants by lying to them about verdant pastures, flowing streams and free land. Imagine arriving in a place with buffalo skulls and alkaline water, flat as far as you can travel in a week, full of marauding hostiles, wolves, vultures, scorpions … no cities, no neighbors … the old country wouldn’t seem so bad.

    I can imagine some geologist in a spacesuit lying on the surface of Mars, pointing at Earth like some starchild while he gasps his last. We can’t make out what he’s saying.

    1. sounds like…
      Sounds like you wouldn’t go TJ. But many people would.

      And many people did move to far away countries, and still do, knowing that they won’t go back.

      For some people, the creature comforts we enjoy are not everything.

      —-
      No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

  3. Strangers doomed in this strange land
    If Mars were a place where a human could exist without so much technology, such a pilgrimage might be possible. But short of having the basic essentials for that existence; breathable air and potable water, the whole thing just zips down the rabbit hole.

    It would indeed be a dead end mission and you would soon die on a barren, alien world.

    We could, of course, pack off enough technology to overcome the thin, unbreathable Martian atmosphere, and give shelter from the raging cosmic rays. But technology is not going to last for untold generations nor will it be capable of reproducing itself without a deep infrastructure of resources.

    Imagine the pilgrims arriving at Plymouth Rock to find that they not only had a landscape devoid of natural foodstuffs (wild game, berries, etc.), but where even the immediate availability of life sustaining water was almost nonexistent.

    Mars may be a great place to visit but it will never be colonizable (in a long-term sense) until we learn how to terraform planets in a time frame equivalent to a human generation or two.

    1. too much technology ?
      What’s the problem with reliance on technology?

      If the technology of New York, Mexico City, Moscow or Bejing fails, more than half the population there will be dead within a year. No power, no water, no heat, no food.

      If the technology that supports our agriculture fails (water supplies, transportation, fertilizers, …) 75% of the population of the planet is dead in a year or so.

      So what is the big deal with a small number of people living on Mars, using technology to support themselves?

      Mars does have water and oxygen – in the rocks and in the atmosphere. All you need is power.

      This is not impossible just because amateurs don’t know how it can be done.

      —-
      No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

      1. What’s the problem with reliance on technology?
        [quote=earthling]

        So what is the big deal with a small number of people living on Mars, using technology to support themselves?

        Mars does have water and oxygen – in the rocks and in the atmosphere. All you need is power.

        This is not impossible just because amateurs don’t know how it can be done.

        [/quote]

        No amount of insults will make this anything but a lame duck issue for the here and now. Amateur or not, simple logic tells you that if your Mars colony has a water purifier (or similar device) that is critical to the life of said settlement that then breaks beyond repair, it will have to be replaced. Initially, the colony will have some built-in depth & redundancy to their systems… or enough spare parts for several decades… maybe even a century. But ultimately, without the iron ore, the smelting plants, the casting forges, the first and second-tier manufacturers of plastics, rubber, wiring, circuit boards, and other synthetic items that go into the part as a whole, you will, eventually, run out of drinkable water.

        Your only hope is that Earth sustains its current level of technological ability through somehow avoiding its own self destructive tendencies, to keep your merry little band of Martians afloat.

        It’s just my opinion so… please don’t worry. NASA doesn’t listen to anything I say, I promise. If they had, I would have been already been in space back in the Mercury days.

        But kidding aside, I do think long term/permanent colonization of space won’t become a reality until we master both large scale terraforming and extended, manned interstellar space flight… so that we can find livable environments for colonies that can survive even if they end up falling back to the horse and buggy before reaching again for the stars.

  4. Fatal Attraction
    Krauss’s straw poll was less than meaningless, it was biased to the point of being b0rked. He asked a bunch of scientists, (that, is scientists in the presence of other scientists doing science, with each of them watching to see what the other people they rely on for the value placed upon them through mutual respect and interactions, and whose work is at least in part intended to be for the benefit of people in general, are going to do when asked how much they value their place as scientists) with no hope of going into space if they would go into space (regardless of how much they wanted to before being asked in this unusual setting) without coming back. Social pressure anyone? Put those scientists on their living room couch, spouse sitting besides them and their kid sitting on their lap, and ask them again. Both answers are equally invalid.

    Sure, settlers heading to the New World (or invaders coming to Turtle Island, as my other relatives would say) had little hope of return, and most never intended to. However, they had hope that they’d be able to survive. They thought they were going to a place God had intended them to go to in order to create a society to their liking (society implies a long term organization of many people for their mutual benefit and improvement; a society like this doesn’t develop among the doomed). They brought seed and they brought kids. They didn’t need to bring air and water. They didn’t have to rely on artificial means to produce these things, means which wouldn’t last long enough for their next birthday much less for their kids to grow up, and which they would never have the capability to build more of or replenish the ones they had.

    Do people remember the astronauts who hung it out over the line? Damn skippy. We and they knew the risks, and those were acceptable enough that there was less than 50/50 of losing one of the Mercury 7. Those guys were test pilots and were used to hanging it out there daily, and “settling” someplace didn’t figure into it.

    Do people remember the first people to settle someplace? You betcha. Even without Disney’s ‘Pocahontas’ many can recall at least a few names from Jamestown.

    Do people remember the first to arrive only to die, a process few would consider “settling” anyplace? Try naming someone from Roanoke Colony without looking it up.*

    The proposition is idiotic in terms of how almost all real people think and act in real situations. Those who’d consider settling someplace would choose to do so in order to live there, not die there, unless they were terminal already.

    * Less than 100 years after Roanoke Colony’s demise, the following occurred “In 1673 in the southern Alleghenies by English explorer James Needham. He related his journey into the Tennessee Valley in written form and a portion of that is about his party’s encounter with, “A white people which have long beards and whiskers and weares clothing, and on some of the others there was much hair. . . the white people have a bell which is six foot over which they ring morning and evening and at that time a great number of people gather together and talk.” Soon it was discovered that these people spoke a language that was “Pidgin Elizabethan English”.” Despite the existence of blond, blue eyed “Indians” that spoke English and quoted the Bible living within migration distance of Roanoke Colony’s location, and without any other way to explain how these people got here, it is still repeated authoritatively that all 116 people of Roanoke perished.

    No, I am not the brain specialist…..
    YES. Yes I AM the brain specialist.

    1. Singularity & Colonization
      So basically the objections are boiled down that the human body is not equipped to survive on Mars on its own.

      What if we discard the human body altogether?

      If the mythical Singularity that Kurzweill has been preaching does arrive someday, would people be willing to trade their feeble biological bodies —in exchange of sturdier sinthetical ones— in order to become the first colonizers of Mars and beyond?

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal