[caption id="attachment_27225" align="alignleft" width="319" caption="Photo: NASA"][/caption]
Going to Mars is costly. The conventional thinking of round-trip missions is losing more and more ground to an idea made public last year. Theoretical physicist/cosmologist Paul Davies addressed the NASA Astrobiology Science Conference, and laid out a solid (and sometimes humorous) case for the One Way Ticket plan.
He points out the commercial angle, saying that not only would a patent trade emerge from discoveries, but televised coverage of the pioneers would be lucrative as well. And those pioneers? He says our planet is full of risk-takers seeking adventure that would fill the role nicely.
Link. Previously on Neatorama: Chart of Missions to Mars
Going to Mars is costly. The conventional thinking of round-trip missions is losing more and more ground to an idea made public last year. Theoretical physicist/cosmologist Paul Davies addressed the NASA Astrobiology Science Conference, and laid out a solid (and sometimes humorous) case for the One Way Ticket plan.
He points out the commercial angle, saying that not only would a patent trade emerge from discoveries, but televised coverage of the pioneers would be lucrative as well. And those pioneers? He says our planet is full of risk-takers seeking adventure that would fill the role nicely.
By comparison, a one-way trip to Mars would not be so risky. But it does need a spirit of adventure of the sort that the early explorers had, in particular the people who opened up Antarctica. These people often went knowing that there was a high probability that they would not come back, and that if they didn’t come back, they were going to their deaths. I’m not suggesting that going to Mars necessarily means an instant death, but it may mean a premature death, it may mean your life expectancy is shortened by a little bit. But as I said, people attempt that risk in all sorts of other walks of life.
And what I have in mind is not just four miserable people sitting around on the martian surface waiting to die, (laughter) but that they would actually be doing useful job work.
You wouldn’t be going there as tourists, you wouldn’t be going there for fun. You’d be going there to do science, and emailing all this stuff back. Your publication record would be sensational. (laughter) You would no doubt have all sort of honors heaped on you.
But you wouldn’t be coming home.
Link. Previously on Neatorama: Chart of Missions to Mars
Going to Mars would be a dream come true, for me, and for a lot of other people. While I want to go for the chance to experience and discover things that no one else has before, there certainly would be others who would get a thrill from the danger and the instant fame.
I mean, being one of the first people to set foot on Mars would ensure that you're remembered for all time (more or less).
And with the way the world's going, I'm sure there are plenty of people who wouldn't mind saying goodbye to the wars, diseases, crime, etc. of the Earth. You know, so they can bring all that stuff to Mars. ;)
I'm sure I can accomplish more on Mars in a few years than I am likely to in an entire lifetime on this planet. There are probably other people who feel the same way.
Either way, sign me up!
I say go for it. I'm not one of those people. The thought of not being able to come back home, not being able to go outside and breath in a lung-full of fresh air.. just no...
but if other people are up for it. More power to them! I'll sit at home and watch them on tv religiously! That would be SO damn interesting to watch.
Still. Even knowing that you will find people like that, I'm ill at ease to think of public policy built on the one-way-ticket idea, entrenched in the concept of the disposable human. And don't counter with "that what war's all about": it's one thing to say you might not come home, or even probably not, another to say you WILL not, even to a volunteer. So instead of a suicide bomber's lure of a virgin-laden paradise, you offer academic glory and screen-time? Because it's going to take a few missions at least until things are sorted out enough to the point that life expectancy is "shortened by a little bit" as in this gentleman's softening statement. And they won't be pretty.
Heck most main scientists anyhow only get famous only after they died and without them knowing it. So why not die on Mars and be sure about that place in History?
I'll put aside my opinions on the morality of your suggestion for a moment and concentrate on logistics.
This would conflict with the general idea that once they arrive, the people/explorers/colonists should do useful work- and by that, they mean useful both to themselves and to those of us back on Earth. For that we need scientists, doctors, engineers, and other highly skilled people who are motivated to work hard for little tangible reward.