Do you think it's right for NASA to run the 'One-way trip to mars' misson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VPpT3rs1J0

Many people would love the chance to go into space and even Mars, but do you think it's right that NASA should be able to cut costs by not allowing the people who go on this pioneering mission to return? One of the main reasons why it is so expensive is because we do not have the exact correct equipment and technology at this time, but still the USA and NASA want to be the first people to land people on Mars but do you think that this is fair to come at the cost of human lives, even if they are volunteers.

One of the main problems is the solar radiation that they will be exposed to on their way to Mars, there are ways to shield this but the equipment is too heavy at this time and would take far too much fuel to lift off. This means that the passengers aboard would be put at a very high risk of developing aggressive cancers which will kill them in a short space of time. To be an astronaut you have to be quite physically and mentally fit, so by NASA doing this program, just because they want to win the race to the red planet, they are going to let perfectly healthy people die.

Do you think it's the own fault of the volunteers if they die as they knew what they were signing up for? Or do you think it is unfair of NASA to tempt people onto this mission that will end in their deaths in the name of science? Should we just wait until we have the technologies to do a safe mission to Mars?


DEBATE!

They need to wait until the technology is ready.

Having said that im sure all people going on this trip would be told about the consequences and dangers and therefore will be doing it at their own risk.

So concluding...I think that they should do it when the technology to protect ect is ready.

I think it can be risky as for the moment we're still discovering new things and at the moment I dont think all the technology we need is here

I think they need to wait untill they've got the technology Its a bad danger risk

In the future they may do this again and find out they've got the tech now, so why did they do it before

If People do choose to do it, sure they may be told this will happen, this may happen, whats the point, if they wait a few years
We could have the same thing but they have the tech and money to send people back ad so they know what was going to happen

There are very few things a person can do in life to distinguish themselves out of over 5 billion people. The people who go on this trip will be made immortal. They may not live forever but they will be remembered forever as people who gave their own lives for the human race.

This is why i am for NASA doing this mission. I think you will find that there is a huge amount of people who would do anything to go on this mission even if it means they wont return. The people who are given the opportunity realise that if they ever want to get off the earth before they die, this is their sole chance.


I believe that this mission is not "inhumane" its in fact very humane as it gives a few people the chance to do something that nobody else their age will ever get to do.

Radiation from deep space is a very real and very dangerous factor when talking about a voyage to Mars. Without the protection of a planets atmosphere the astronauts and their vehicle will feel the direct impact of that radiation. I think they need to work on that more before they talk about sending people to Mars.

I do disagree with sending people on a one way ticket to the Martian surface purely to cut the cost by about 70%. In my opinion they should concentrate on building a space station to orbit the surface and work from there, however this also proves very costly.

Communication between here and Mars will be very crazy. If the sun is in between Mars and the earth, which it is every 768 days, then the radio communication signal would take 21 minutes to reach the other end, and this would happen for several weeks, until the sun was out of the way. If the sun is not in the way, it will take about 4 minutes for the signal to reach. Meaning that an astronaut could say something, and mission control will not hear it for either of those minutes, and vice versa.

So back to the main topic, I think at this time it is unfair to send people to Mars at all, let alone on a one way ticket. There is a lot to consider and they should take their time.

Quote:

---

I do disagree with sending people on a one way ticket to the Martian surface purely to cut the cost by about 70%.

---

Well actualy it's not purely about the money, NASA do want to colonise mars. Also that 70% equates to many many billions . Spending that much money to bring back volunteers who are getting the chance of many lifetimes just doesn't seem right to me. I saw an add on the tv the other day that my one dollar per day will save an African child per day. I know it's a bit off the point but do the math XD.

Quote:

---

Communication between here and Mars will be very crazy. If the sun is in between Mars and the earth, which it is every 768 days, then the radio communication signal would take 21 minutes to reach the other end, and this would happen for several weeks, until the sun was out of the way. If the sun is not in the way, it will take about 4 minutes for the signal to reach. Meaning that an astronaut could say something, and mission control will not hear it for either of those minutes, and vice versa.

---

200 years ago, even less , It took 21 minutes for a message to get from a little country cottage to a town. Nobody knew what was going on in the world (or even country!) around them. Im sure this "message lag", is one of their least problems considering that at its closest mars is 54.6 million km away from earth.

The astronauts know there's danger to it, and if they decide to take part in a trip with just one ticket that's their decision. As long as they make it without influence I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

It's not so much the technology, it's all the testing that's required (cost-prohibitive) for it to be used and the fact the whole computer system NASA use is designed to work as a closed system. Most of the technology NASA use is from the 1970s.

I think it's totally up the astronauts, they will know it's a one way ticket.. although will life insurance cover it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moh

although will life insurance cover it?

---

Good question lol.

Quote:

---

200 years ago, even less , It took 21 minutes for a message to get from a little country cottage to a town. Nobody knew what was going on in the world (or even country!) around them. Im sure this "message lag", is one of their least problems considering that at its closest mars is 54.6 million km away from earth.

---

This is a null point. Mars being that far away is not a problem. The vehicle will have enough fuel to launch and then complete course correction burns on the way to keep them going to mars. When they are not doing that they will be coasting, without using fuel towards their target, because there will be no gravity pulling from any other planets as they progress, so I can assure you that the distance isn't the problem.

The means of communication is BIGGER than the distance of the planets. When they are at their closest points, they are in a straight line, so then it will take 4 minutes to receive a message. They will overcome this, of course they will - but it is bigger than the importance of distance.

If they wanted to send people to mars it would be easy. On a 3 stage rocket they would have more than enough stowage to keep their food in. After all the first probe that touched the surface of mars was in the 1970's, so it really is not the distance.

This is why they are saying they will use a 1 way ticket to mars. Because getting there, quite simple and a lot cheaper. Getting them back, that will require more invested money, more cargo to stow, more course correction burns on the way back, so all in all, even more fuel.

Quote:

---

This is a null point.

---

You said this and didn't really back it up, you then went on to talk about something different so im guessing you misunderstood what i meant.

Of course they dont intend to have a conversation "Hi" {21 mins} "hi , how are you all?" {21 mins} "im good" etc

They will send all info as a "package" and get what they need back in another "package". When i talked about how life was 200 years ago i simply pointed out that people lived in that way before, it's only in very recent years tht we have instant communication across earth.

I can't see the title the US will hold will be all that appealing. "The USA, first country to land man on Mars WITHOUT them returning." It'd be more impressive if they could return as well, not just be left to die on some deserted rock. They should probably explore the technology and equipment needed to land man on Mars further. Volunteers would be doing it for all the wrong reasons with annoying self-less lust for their country, which we all know far too well is alive and well in the USA - not necessarily a bad thing, but not healthy given some circumstances.

Given American culture, I am surprised they are willing to let people die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

You said this and didn't really back it up, you then went on to talk about something different so im guessing you misunderstood what i meant.

Of course they dont intend to have a conversation "Hi" {21 mins} "hi , how are you all?" {21 mins} "im good" etc

They will send all info as a "package" and get what they need back in another "package". When i talked about how life was 200 years ago i simply pointed out that people lived in that way before, it's only in very recent years tht we have instant communication across earth.

---

Okay I understand what you mean about the second point now, thanks for clearing it up. I agree people have lived in that way before, and we have got used to more instant communication.

Regarding the first point; when I mentioned communicating I didn't mean quick calls. But communicating from deep space is difficult even when the data is sent as a packet. The telemetry of the data packet will be created first, usually monitored by a committee that runs the deep space communication, especially the important data packets that is sending back information from a scientific stand point.

However, there are messages that may be of urgency, leading to the usage of a data packet just not enough. I have heard that they are considering putting satellites in orbit around the earth and around mars in a B orbit, allowing for a better flow and transfer of data packets and conversation. There is a lot to think about, and I am sure they will come up with the solution in due course.

Quote:

---

"The USA, first country to land man on Mars WITHOUT them returning."

---

I truly believe that this will go down in history as " The USA, first country to colonise Mars"

Quote:

---

Given American culture, I am surprised they are willing to let people die

---

Ever hear of the middle east?

I have a feeling that in years to come movies will be made about this whether it happens or not. :)

The Mars missions according to me, are useless. We've spent like millions only to find that probably life existed on Mars once. What will this Mission result in? We'll get to know a few more facts about Mars , USA will be widely applauded for the mission. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

What will this Mission result in? We'll get to know a few more facts about Mars

---

This mission seems to be concerned with primarily to take our first steps in "colonising" other planets, rather than finding out more facts although that is probably something they will also do.

What I am trying to say that a one way mission can do nothing helpful , we can only discover about the planet.

If people are willing to give their lives for this mission, I don't see why NASA are doing anything wrong.

Yes, they're not forcing people to go. Its optional.

Woah this is crazy. But I think it's "right" - I mean they know what they are getting themselves into.

But, for me, I wouldn't go frankly because we don't really know what to expect when you finally arrive.

Well it is all up to the astronorts if thay whant to do it why not ?
prove me wrong.

This is hardly a topic for debate. There is no right or wrong and the poster above me is spot on. If any astronauts want to do this then fair enough, NASA can make it happen. They're not forcing people into it.

I personally think this is a pathetic idea and I totally feel this a mission like this is inhumane in my opinion. How can you possibly even consider sending humans to live on a planet and expect them never to return, this is there intention is it not?

In a way they are trying to create life using artificial methods in order to create life on another planet... I just don't understand why. What is the reason for this? Why should astronauts give up the life they are living now in order to create a new form of life? I think this is just... weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nuxty

I personally think this is a pathetic idea and I totally feel this a mission like this is inhumane in my opinion. How can you possibly even consider sending humans to live on a planet and expect them never to return, this is there intention is it not?

In a way they are trying to create life using artificial methods in order to create life on another planet... I just don't understand why. What is the reason for this? Why should astronauts give up the life they are living now in order to create a new form of life? I think this is just... weird.

---

They're not being forced, it will be their choice, they will know what they're letting themselves in for. And it's not just to go and live on another planet, it's to colonize that planet and explore it.

Yeah but its also a "one-way" trip. Trust me, NASA will put pressure on a team to go up there. Will whoever does go up there will practically be dead on earth as they won't really "exist" on earth anymore. I am against it as I feel its people throwing their lives away. Thats my opinion anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nuxty

Yeah but its also a "one-way" trip. Trust me, NASA will put pressure on a team to go up there. Will whoever does go up there will practically be dead on earth as they won't really "exist" on earth anymore. I am against it as I feel its people throwing their lives away. Thats my opinion anyway.

---

They're throwing away their lives by being the first people on another planet? Theyll be the most famous people on earth.

There is a chance they won't be throwing lives away, if they don't waste their supplies, plus Earth apparently sending more food/water every so many months.. it could well work.

Although we don't have sufficient information to find out whether Mars is inhabitable or not so it could fail too, I'd say we need to find out more about the planet before rocketing a bunch of astronauts there for life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0BB13G

They're throwing away their lives by being the first people on another planet? Theyll be the most famous people on earth.

---

Yes as i said in my previous posts, they will be imortilised by doing this, they will be remembered as the first colonisers of "the new world", just like columbus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

Yes as i said in my previous posts, they will be imortilised by doing this, they will be remembered as the first colonisers of "the new world", just like columbus.

---

Exactly. Although I'd never do it both because I can't (health reasons) and because I couldn't leave my family, I think it would be an amazing opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rixion

There is a chance they won't be throwing lives away, if they don't waste their supplies, plus Earth apparently sending more food/water every so many months.. it could well work.

Although we don't have sufficient information to find out whether Mars is inhabitable or not so it could fail too, I'd say we need to find out more about the planet before rocketing a bunch of astronauts there for life.

---

Don't worry i don't think NASA are just sending them there to abandon them. The main focus of this mission seems to be to colonise Mars, won't do this much good if the astronauts are corpses. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

Don't worry i don't think NASA are just sending them there to abandon them. The main focus of this mission seems to be to colonise Mars, won't do this much good if the astronauts are corpses. :)

---

Exactly haha. They'll do everything they can to make the mission successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0BB13G

Exactly haha. They'll do everything they can to make the mission successful.

---

Yeah, i suppose as long as it's not too expensive. Remember that's the main or else the second main reason the astronauts won't return.

I think that possible the money side of it might be just a bit of a cover up on NASAs part. Maybe to make it seem as theres no choice but to send them there on a one way ticket. Maybe NASA just want this colonisation of mars ASAP and so they do this.

Food for though. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

I truly believe that this will go down in history as " The USA, first country to colonise Mars"

---

Eh? How? I very much doubt it would be a single nation effort to colonise Mars, it would probably be a joint effort with countries like China and/or Russia being the first to actually land on Mars and then bring those people back. The USA just want to chuck a man at Mars and have them claim a stake in the planet, rather than anything truely worth while (other than bury the first human being on Mars, assuming they have a robot up there controlled from Earth to bury the dead).

What many of you are failing to realise is that "returning" is actually a fairly new concept that has developed over the past few centuries. Prior to that exploration often did mean visiting a place and not returning, unless of course you were particularly wealthy. For example look at the colonisation of America, the people left knowing that they would never return. I don't think the fact that they aren't coming back is a major problem because it's the nature of a mission like this and it will be completely infeasible to offer a return journey any time soon and the potential rewards of it are actually much smaller, the point is to colonise Mars.

That said there are considerations that have to be taken into account such as, as people have mentioned, cancer in deep space and long term care. It's fine when someone is young and healthy but what about when the team grows old and is less physically and physiologically able? In terms of Space exploration 20 years is not a large amount of time and yet in terms of Human ageing it's a huge amount of time. It's certainly a tricky subject and one that I fear none of us will be able to think through and answer properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Eh? How? I very much doubt it would be a single nation effort to colonise Mars, it would probably be a joint effort with countries like China and/or Russia being the first to actually land on Mars and then bring those people back. The USA just want to chuck a man at Mars and have them claim a stake in the planet, rather than anything truely worth while (other than bury the first human being on Mars, assuming they have a robot up there controlled from Earth to bury the dead).

---

MrPinkpanther already wrote much of what i wanted to say to this, people back pre 1700s( even sooner for many) had to leave their homes and never return. But, if the USA are going there first then of course it's their name that's going down, just like the first man on the moon.

"Chuck a man at mars"you say, if they sent the men/women up there with no protection,food,water and without a plan to keep them alive then they'd be "chucking" them up there. What they going to be doing is trying to keep them alive to the best of their resources.

What they are doing is begining human history on Mars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0BB13G

They're not being forced, it will be their choice, they will know what they're letting themselves in for. And it's not just to go and live on another planet, it's to colonize that planet and explore it.

---

Where's the news about colonising it? Last time I checked, we lacked the technology to colonise anything in space. This mission is obviously an example of America trying to beat other countries to Mars, no matter what. As far as I see it, it's only a great mission if they can bring back the people they're shooting off to Mars. Until then, it's not an amazing feat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

MrPinkpanther already wrote much of what i wanted to say to this, people back pre 1700s( even sooner for many) had to leave their homes and never return. But, if the USA are going there first then of course it's their name that's going down, just like the first man on the moon.

"Chuck a man at mars"you say, if they sent the men/women up there with no protection,food,water and without a plan to keep them alive then they'd be "chucking" them up there. What they going to be doing is trying to keep them alive to the best of their resources.

What they are doing is begining human history on Mars.

---

Ah, so like leaving a hamster at home all on it's own with a full bowl of food to keep it alive for a couple of days. Perfect, that makes it all the more better :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

What many of you are failing to realise is that "returning" is actually a fairly new concept that has developed over the past few centuries.

---

You mean this century? It's not been 100 years yet :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Where's the news about colonising it? Last time I checked, we lacked the technology to colonise anything in space. This mission is obviously an example of America trying to beat other countries to Mars, no matter what. As far as I see it, it's only a great mission if they can bring back the people they're shooting off to Mars. Until then, it's not an amazing feat.


Ah, so like leaving a hamster at home all on it's own with a full bowl of food to keep it alive for a couple of days. Perfect, that makes it all the more better :P


You mean this century? It's not been 100 years yet :P

---

1. As you see from my previous posts i disagree with this, How can an operation of this magnitude and expense not be an amazing feat?

2.Humans aren't hamsters, if you disagree with NASA doing this do you also disagree with the international space station?

3. All he was saying is that it was an idea developing over the past few centuries, i don't know why you are talking about it not being 100 years yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eoin247

1. As you see from my previous posts i disagree with this, How can an operation of this magnitude and expense not be an amazing feat?

2.Humans aren't hamsters, if you disagree with NASA doing this do you also disagree with the international space station?

3. All he was saying is that it was an idea developing over the past few centuries, i don't know why you are talking about it not being 100 years yet.

---

1. It's an interesting feat., but not amazing. Amazing would be bringing them back and forth, not doing what some people do and that is lick or spit on food to claim it as their own.

2. I honestly don't know where you got that comparison, so I won't answer such a silly question as the two are completely different. International Space Station workers tend to come back.

3. Don't make up stories. He obviously stated "returning" as a new concept, referring to moon landings and any other space adventures or experiments. If he was stating the idea as developing, he would of done. And it's not been 100 years yet, century = 100 years. Look it up. Last time I checked, man didn't go into space until 1961 (Russian interstellar space mission). It's not 2061, so it hasn't been a century and the prior to this with testing and so forth, the first tests weren't done in the early 1900s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

1. It's an interesting feat., but not amazing. Amazing would be bringing them back and forth, not doing what some people do and that is lick or spit on food to claim it as their own.

2. I honestly don't know where you got that comparison, so I won't answer such a silly question as the two are completely different. International Space Station workers tend to come back.

3. Don't make up stories. He obviously stated "returning" as a new concept, referring to moon landings and any other space adventures or experiments. If he was stating the idea as developing, he would of done. And it's not been 100 years yet, century = 100 years. Look it up. Last time I checked, man didn't go into space until 1961 (Russian interstellar space mission). It's not 2061, so it hasn't been a century and the prior to this with testing and so forth, the first tests weren't done in the early 1900s.

---

Actually he meant the concept of returning from anywhere in general. Was it not just a few centuries ago that America was founded? And the people left knowing full well that they were never going to come back, and there was a possible chance of dying on the journey. This is not THAT different, except it will be written in the books of history - therefore, I have no problem with it. The will know the consequences, they will know what they're getting themselves into, it's their choice and thus no one should say they can't if they want to.