Why Did 400 People Volunteer for a One-Way Trip to Mars? | Hacker News Reader

Why Did 400 People Volunteer for a One-Way Trip to Mars?

blogs.nationalgeographic.com

42 pointssolipsist20 comments

It's partly a grim sort of math where the public would be forced to support continued funding for the Mars affair. The Moon landings generated some interest for about a year, but nothing substantial over the long term. Having a number of hostages stranded on Mars and completely dependent on public funding will ensure Mars spending in perpetuity.

Now and perhaps for the next few decades, Earth's most hostile environments would still be more habitable than the best Outer Space has to offer. Early colonists to new lands on Earth would already be self-sufficient the moment they arrived, whereas Mars colonists would be dependent on Earth for decades to come.

It's not even certain that this mission would add much in terms of know-how or capital investment into economically sustainable (instead of subsidized) space colonization. 20 years of space shuttle and a decade of ISS didn't make Earth Orbit more inviting to humans. The costs to sending humans in space has not changed in decades and commercial exploitation of space has not been helped by government boondoggles.

I think it's rather foolish to pursue planetary colonization before at least Earth's orbit has become economically accessible and habitable.

It's not even certain that this mission would add much in terms of know-how or capital investment into economically sustainable (instead of subsidized) space colonization.

Sure, but it would almost certainly provide a crucible in which to drive & accelerate R&D.

If you look at history, you'll notice much of humanity's periods of rapid development are centered around a driving need, rather than a future goal. IMHO, we just don't work as well when we're preparing for something that hasn't happened yet.

There are always people who want to go somewhere and start over. I'm one of them. Out of every generation, there are some who aren't happy where they're at and want to strike out for a new land to build on and call their own. But in the modern time, there's nowhere left to go. I left Florida and moved to San Francisco. It was almost as far as I could go inside the U.S., and its been a good move, but its only a placeholder.

Given the opportunity, I would leave the Earth altogether to pioneer a new world. Its not in some vain idea of grand adventure. Realistically, I could die on the voyage. Exposure to radiation in space might shorten my lifespan many years. Landing could kill me. Living in a lower gravity environment might have unforeseen long-term consequences. Some kind of equipment malfunction or disease could kill our crops on the surface.

Despite all of these possibilities, there are just some of us who don't care. Simply staying home and safe in the cradle isn't really how I want to live my life. The mere idea of being one of a handful of the first people to step onto land that no one has ever been to before, discovering whatever's there, and building something new is inspiring.

I would be in a place that is free of the history and baggage that hangs onto the society I live in. I could build something new.

Well said. History is full of pioneers who wanted adventure and were willing to sacrifice health or longevity for it.

From my perspective, how could anyone not want to sign up? I am extremely happy where I am now, but the thought of setting foot on Mars raises hairs on the back of my neck and gets my heart racing. I am young and single, so I would go in an instant.

I guess I can understand not going because of family or a significant other.

"but the thought of setting foot on Mars raises hairs on the back of my neck and gets my heart racing"

The thought of living the rest of your life in a small capsule with no possibility of getting back and with no real-time communication to earth doesn't sound that promising.

And the scientific value of such a mission is not that high either. Wait 10 or 20 years and everything a human could do on Mars could also be done by a robot. Effects (on humans) of living on Mars could be assessed with animal testing. If you want to send humans there wait till the robots have build some base station.

Sending robots would even be economically more feasible: With humans you waste lots of energy and storage space just for life support. With robots you don't need to care about this and can use this storage for other things instead.

"The thought of living the rest of your life in a small capsule with no possibility of getting back and with no real-time communication to earth doesn't sound that promising."

That depends on your perspective. Similar but less extreme arguments apply to:

* Living on a small boat at sea (or setting sail for another country in the 1600s)

* Living on the international space station

* Going west in the 1800s

You have a valid point that it makes more economic sense to send robots. But my post (and it's parent) weren't about the economics. They were answering the OP's title: Why Did 400 People Volunteer for a One-Way Trip to Mars?

I would be in a place that is free of the history and baggage that hangs onto the society I live in.

Good luck with that. No matter where you go... There you are.

Meanwhile, I really cannot understand the logic that says that San Francisco is not different enough from Florida so it's time to try a small capsule on an airless rock. Have you considered another country? They have quite a few of them. Vietnam? Madagascar? The Australian outback? Peleliu? Hong Kong? Morocco? South Africa? Costa Rica? Argentina? Have you even tried Alaska, which is a US state and everything?

If living in a confined space sounds like fun, have you tried living on a submarine? Or, if you imagine that being a submariner would be just too much of a social experience, have you tried solitary confinement? That can be arranged. Important hint, though: do so with trusted supervision - depression is a serious condition, terrible things could happen to your health - and have a safe word.

I wouldn't go because I'm not into cannibalism and I'm aware of the less glamorous side of history. Jamestown, Plymouth, Donner Party, Roanoke...unfortunately this repeats itself way too often.

It's much different from Disney's Pocahontas and the story book Pilgrims we remember from child.

It's likely those folks weren't into cannibalism either before it was required to survive.

Early colonists to new lands on Earth would already be self-sufficient the moment they arrived

Simply not true: 1) Antarctica 2) Any sort of colonization of the sea bed (it's land!).

The Antarctic coast and particularly the western peninsula would be able to sustain small human communities, even without modern technology (like Greenland or Northern Canada can). The interior is more forbidding, but nothing like Mars.

As for the sea and seabed, the logistics of sending supplies are not even comparable. It's actually a counter-example. If living on the sea or on the seabed has not been viable, what would make outer space viable? For a few 10x millions you can probably get a floating greenhouse and subsurface habitat in place. Mining the sea bottom is not yet valuable, despite many more mineral resources available.

Early colonists to new lands on Earth would already be self-sufficient the moment they arrived, whereas Mars colonists would be dependent on Earth for decades to come.

If there was concerted research on self sufficiency, perhaps not. A big difference between Mars and the Moon and LEO, is that Mars has a lot of the same resources Earth has.

I think it's rather foolish to pursue planetary colonization before at least Earth's orbit has become economically accessible and habitable

I rather think that being perched at the top of a ballistic trajectory is a poor place to try self sufficiency, especially compared to a site on the ground with water and readily extractable resources. We know Mars has these.

EDIT: Zubrin in "The Case for Mars" has already outlined a whole industrial program based on the sophomore-year chemistry of Sabatier reactors, which could get you up to plastics and steel production, starting with only hydrogen feedstock imported from Earth. Since Mars appears to have abundant water, the hydrogen can be acquired locally.

"Early colonists to new lands on Earth would already be self-sufficient the moment they arrived"

Doesn't the Thanksgiving holiday explicitly recognize that early settlers in America had to rely upon help from the locals to survive?

"To quote from the paper: 'Humans are notorious for inventing ways of having sex despite all manner of logistical impediments.'"

I definitely wouldn't go. Sorry. That photo is just too unwelcoming for me to imagine trying to figure out how I'd actually breathe after the oxygen tanks ran out of air. However, it's a very interesting proposition. To have to think completely out of the box. I mean, could you even call it thinking anymore? Everything that we know about physics, science, gravity, etc... all of the laws of this and that -- and the natural resources that we take for granted on earth would no longer be an option for usage. Yikes! How do you then -- beyond theory -- truly begin to obtain and apply practical knowledge in an efficient enough fashion as to avoid death on arrival?

Sending people to Mars would be intentionally creating both an emergency and a rescue operation an order of magnitude more complex than Apollo 13.

My only thought is.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2vWQFHP3D0

I might have something to do with Total Recall.

I would go... in the second mission.

I wonder if we could crowd-source a mars mission. I reckon enough intrigue, wonder, funding and credibility can be generated by a global campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com