Going To Mars - To Stay

I suggested this back in 1997 when the folk at Johnson were, with a straight face, talking about a 2009 first launch for a crewed mission to Mars. However I further calculated that a crew of six could be provided with keep-alive supplies indefinitely for about half a billion dollars a year (would need to be adjusted for inflation and current launch costs). Then they can just live there (in their dirt-covered habitat to protect against radiation) until someone develops their ride home.

So maybe they could come home eventually. If they wanted.

Mars orbit is the sweet spot. Known environment, we already have 3/4 of the needed hardware (ISS-like modules). If Phobos or Deimos have water, Mars orbit has the potential to be the next New York City. For NASA, an orbiter-first strategy would create thriving forward base for real-time telerobotics on the surface and 2 moons, delaying landing for a decade or until there is a need. If NASA doesn't do this, someone else will, simply because it makes sense.

George Herbert's original One Way to Stay proposal was an interesting thought exercise. No one has suggested seriously the One-Way = suicide method yet it is always the first thing to people's minds. It's an entire world to explore and develop. Most serious proposals just defer Mars to orbit for several decades and focus on emplacing real infrastructure there.

Any missions to Mars need to focus on trailblazing for others to follow not one-off events. We need a first generation of pioneers.

There is another benefit to a "no return" mission.

Even if the Astronauts eventually perished on Mars, All they have to do is resign as "U.S. Government officials" before the end, then they may claim land on Mars for their families.

Since the Outer Space Treaty: "explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet"

Once they are no longer "agents of a government" they may personally claim land.

AND since their remains will be there indefinitely, I'd call that a valid claim.

Heinrich: "The reason people explore is because it makes them more valuable to humanity"

Sure, if they do it on their own or their donors' raised dime. Just like explorers did in the past.

Otherwise, it is called having personal fun at others' expense.

Especially, as expensive as a free ride for these "explorers" would be at hundreds of billions of hard earned money for others, at the very least. Which can be spent on something else. Perhaps, more productive/inspiring per dollar.

Ever heard of opportunity costs?

Seems to me that every two years or so somebody re-invents the idea of a one way trip to Mars. It makes technical sense, in that the hardest part of a human Mars mission is the return, but it's essentially irrelevant, since there is no-- repeating, absolutely no possible way-- that the US would ever allow this kind of mission. It's a neat concept for SF, but has nothing to do real-world exploration.

For those who do wish to advocate it, however, I would suggest that the way to phrase it is "the first mission to Mars should be the colonizing mission" -- not "let's send astronauts to Mars and let them die there."

The good news is that the Houston Chronicle is reminding people that "probability of safe return" is an important parameter or DOF in the planning for a Mars HSF program. When people don't talk about the possibility of astronauts dying, they're denying an important element of reality. I hate the thought as much as anybody, but failing to confront it honestly is a many-sided mistake.

"since there is no-- repeating, absolutely no possible way-- that the US would ever allow this kind of mission."

Thank you Geoff for leaving that door open ...

So the first to Mars will be the first willing to go one way. Japan? China?

The one way suicide mission is an interesting thought experiment. The one way to stay mission is... well, exactly why would we do that?
Lets assume we're not just ditching these explorers on the surface, but supplying them with enough equipment and supplies to make a reasonably comfortable life. That is tons of stuff over decades of time, depending on how long these explorers last.

I don't see any politician being ready to make that kind of commitment. They prefer to flip space exploration on and off like a switch to suit their election year needs, not having national heroes hanging on by a golden thread of delivery drops.

Also, if your capable of moving supplies to mars in large shipments, why not send return craft?
It would seem only prudent to equip a martian base with an escape system that could bring the explorers back to earth. Its better than watching them slowly die as a biosphere failed or some other unexpected happening made staying on mars dangerous.

We're still sorting out the difficulties of living on the moon for more than a week. Making a permanent outpost on mars seems a bit premature.
Not that its a bad idea to work up to, but there is a lot of work between then and now.

Since the Outer Space Treaty: "explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet"

Er no... you omit the parts of the Treaty that specifically forbid what you are trying to pull:

Article II states that any "space objects" launched by States party to the treaty (and perforce any people in those objects) are subject to the jurisdiction and control of the State that launched that space object.

Period.

No matter what the people themselves may declare afterwards.

No massive land grabs :)

> absolutely no possible way-- that the US would
> ever allow this kind of mission. It's a neat
> concept for SF, but has nothing to do real-
> world exploration.

FYI: the "real-world" includes countries other than the US. While I agree that this plan is a non-starter in the US, there's no reason why someone else can't do a one-way trip. China, I'm looking at you.

I really couldn't care less which nation, corporation or other group-entity gets to Mars. As long as someone does.

"So the first to Mars will be the first willing to go one way. Japan? China?"

Ha. Then someone else will come along and do it right. The pictures of their Japanese or Chinese predecessor waving goodbye to them when they depart will be priceless. Or perhaps a desperate hitchhikers thumb instead of a wave?

Heinrich, Successful one-way trips include early Christians sending Paul to Rome, the heart of paganism, never to return. Perhaps ethics and sense of mission are more powerful than loneliness to some. Emigrants in search of a new life make successful one-way trips every day.
danwithaplan, Lewis and Clarke were financed through the taxpayers. Donors for typical missions got their wealth by exploiting slaves. It's one and the same.
Maxwell, the search for the Northwest Passage is instructive. Franklin's preparation was extensive and groundbreaking, and he failed completely. McClure's was a hastily assembled rescue mission, and members of it claimed the prize for the first traverse of the Passage. Failure is a beacon, not just a barrier.
-Jed

There has been a science fiction novel written about a one way flight, which also happens to be one of my favourite SF novels. Titan, by Stephen Baxter. But, as it's name suggests, it's to Titan instead of Mars. It's actually now an alternate history, since they flew there in 2008. In a modified shuttle.

Baxter is known for ultra realistic SF, so definitely worth a read!

"So the first to Mars will be the first willing to go one way. Japan? China?"

Although I wouldn't rule out anything on the part of the PRC, I think that a 'one way to say' mission profile isn't the sort of thing any state space program would try as a first phase HSF mission to Mars. Remember, they want the heroes back so their head of state can pin medals to them and so they can appear on talk shows.

No, if anyone were to try this it would be a visionary group of very rich people supported by the necessary tens of thousands of private subscribers (for a large tithe of annual income) that would be needed to raise capital. The initial mission's objective would be to place a 'seed' group of no more than 20-30 engineers on the surface to establish the first 'foothold' base and get ISRU and agriculture up and running. The private subscribers, as well as having their name on the 'foundation' monolith set up outside the first off-world colony, would also automatically have their names put in the hat for the follow up settler delivery flights (probably in groups of 50 every launch window). Naturally, before departure, the last act of such a volunteer would be to sign all remaining Earth-bound assets over to the Mars Colonisation Company for disposal to fund further activities.

Yes, that would necessarily mean psychologically and, eventually, literally cutting one's links with Earth and your Earth-bound families - to commit yourself and your means of living entirely to the project and to eventually live on another planet. I can see this actually being an important aspect of the recruitment process. You weed out those who think it is a good idea but have no desire to actually walk the talk. Even whilst still living on Earth, these subscribers/volunteers would be, in a very real sense, the first Martians.

The Russians have had this on their books for a decade and I for one wouldn't put it past them.

The US could do this, except, probably, for public opinion. But given sufficient ADVANCE infrastructure it could be done. Food for months/1year, living quarters, a rover, a couple of robots, hydroponics systems etc.

I'm hoping to be buried on Mars, (in, hopefully, about 50 years!) so I'm doing what *I* can :)

No US President wants to be the one to initiate such a macabre program. You saw what happened with the concept of "death panels", which were just fiction; imagine if there really were such a thing convened by NASA!