Should NASA Send Astronauts On Voluntary One-Way Missions?
Looks like someone has already voted from this IP. If you would like to vote please login and try again.
Should NASA Send Astronauts On Voluntary One-Way Missions?
0
Percentage of others that also voted for:
Yes, for any mission (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as simple as asking: "do you want to take that risk"?
There's plenty of people in the world willing to participate to something that will likely end their lives, as long as they perceive it as heroic. It's one of the freedoms I value in a civilized world.
With that being said, 15 years ago I would have volunteered, but today, for the sake of my family, I wouldn't.
Re:Yes, for any mission (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, at least in the extent to which survival at the end of the trip (be it one way or not) is not a reasonable probability. It's not as simple as "do you want to take that risk?" Risk implies probability, but planning for a one-way trip is a certainty.
An organization does not have the ethical right to ask for this certainty, especially when there is no chance that the asking could be done without some form of coercion (i.e. implicit do it for your country/honor/science/show you're not a coward/etc...). We don't even ask this of our armed forces. When people join, they know there's a risk (i.e. probability) that they may die - and in fact that they may later be ordered into a very bad situation - but those are situations (often in the heat) where plans went very wrong, or situations involving the kind of math where you spend infinity to gain infinity [wikipedia.org]. And even in that example, the action was voluntary by situation, not by designed plan. We have no such pressing desperation in scientific exploration.
We can design exploration plans that allow for something other than suffocation or starvation as an end point. I would say that exploration with pioneering and settlement are ethically reasonable places to solicit volunteers. Even sustained exploration where limited resources are not an assurance of death (i.e. "an ongoing mission to seek out...") could be reasonable. But I think any mission which involves planting a flag, running a few experiments, and then opening one's helmet is ethically flawed - especially when patience will let us solve the intrinsic survival problems.
Re:Yes, for any mission (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the mentality of modern (western) civilization, where comfort (or its perception) supersedes the willingness to risk your life or even face certain death after a task is accomplished. People from other countries might not exhibit the same mentality, though. They would see life and achievement differently, and that's mainly because they haven't "advanced" that much, therefore their minds aren't fully set on that "life is sacred" BS. Sorry, but I think that's utter BS.
Many technological and scientific advances from the past were done with sacrifice (e.g. Marie Curie, reaching North Pole, South Pole, exploration of Africa). Of course, today's scientific exploration has been made more secure, and we've gotten accustomed to that idea. And we're right, in most cases, but there's still the odd activity which would only be possible through taking huge risks, including volunteers marching to certain death for the purpose of scientific breakthrough. The alternative would be to just curl up in a corner and ignore that scientific branch until further notice, aka "when it's safe" - and in a small amount of cases that would equal "never" or "in hundreds of years".
Which leads us to this specific thing we're talking about, which is space exploration. You can't "simulate" that, you have to go out there and do it. That involves risks, and there's plenty examples from our recent past where space exploration made victims. True, they weren't sent to "certain death" but the outcome was the same nevertheless.
This whole "it's unethical to have such a mission" thing is artificial, and is a byproduct of modern, Western mentality which values life more than anything else, including an activity which might literally "save the planet" someday (space exploration, that is). I find it ironic that one is willing to sacrifice themselves for things such as religious or political belief but at the same time science is a big no-no of a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to go on a one way trip so bad, go private and pay for it yourself. I think some private firm did ask for volunteers.
I believe you're talking about Mars-One (http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap) . They have begun taking applications for colonists to go to Mars. They had over 200,000 applications for becoming one of these colonists. The plan is, starting in 2018, sending supply missions to Mars and a rover, and then in 2024, sending 3 colonists every 2 years.. Its ambitious, but if we wait for governments to do this, we'll be waiting a VERY VERY long time....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well, maybe you don't know the right people.
Re: (Score:3)
But those people exist, and that's all that matters.
I would question whether that willingness were the symptom of a mental deficiency that would make them inherently unfit for the mission.
If you don't value your life that highly, can we really count on you to value the mission highly?
It's problematic, at best.
Re: (Score:2)
People sacrificed their lives for scientific advance throughout history, up until recently. More so for rather narrow religious beliefs. Out of the two, I'd pick scientific advance as the better reason any day.
Re: (Score:2)
People sacrificed their lives for scientific advance throughout history, up until recently. More so for rather narrow religious beliefs. Out of the two, I'd pick scientific advance as the better reason any day.
They took risks, and sometimes drew the short straw. That's not the same as willingly going to certain death. I can't think of anyone doing that, which to me indicates that even if some did, they certainly weren't numerous nor worthy of remembering.
Re: (Score:3)
People sacrificed their lives for scientific advance throughout history, up until recently. More so for rather narrow religious beliefs. Out of the two, I'd pick scientific advance as the better reason any day.
They took risks, and sometimes drew the short straw. That's not the same as willingly going to certain death. I can't think of anyone doing that, which to me indicates that even if some did, they certainly weren't numerous nor worthy of remembering.
Suicide bombers and suicide pilots are fairly common in history. They knowingly and willingly went to certain death to advance their religion and/or country.
There are also lots of people who have went to certain death for political or social reasons.
I can't think of any purely scientific suicides either but going to mars is not necessarily a purely scientific venture either.
It also could be considered a moral or ethical obligation to protect humanity from extinction and/or to advance knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of any purely scientific suicides either
Giordano Bruno?
He refused the offer of a full recantation, which led to his burning on the stake.
Marie Curie - her research led to her death by radiation poisoning.
Harry Daghlian (arguably) - he died trying to prevent a nuclear meltdown from happening.
There were also many scientists who performed dangerous experiments on themselves and lived to tell the tale.
Re: (Score:2)
marie curie lived into her late 60s and died of cumulative exposure to radiation, not "radiation poisoning" as you suggest. At the time she was conducting her science, nobody knew about the health dangers or how to prevent them. I'm sure she would object to you including her on a list of "scientific suicides."
Re: (Score:2)
Giordano Bruno?
He refused the offer of a full recantation, which led to his burning on the stake.
And that was a benefit to science how, exactly? His advances in science had already been made. He died for his own principles, not for science.
And according to the Catholic church, he wasn't even burned for his world view, but because he was a friar who held contrary opinions:
"Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, anyone who has different priorities from myself must be crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's as simple as asking: "do you want to take that risk"?
We have entire Federal Agencies tasked with managing food and product safety, because "do you want to take that risk" is something that society has decided is not a valid way to frame the debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, these only regulates standards when the consumer can't assess the risk.
If you want to eat poison, go nuts. No regulation will stop you. Drink bleach, mix mercury with your coffee, shave lead onto your food, or quite literally eat shit and die. FDA doesn't care.
But if you want to sell food that is contaminated with poison, without bothering to tell buyers that it's not suitable for human consumption, then yes society should stop you.
reductive contextualization b/c of Mars ONE bs (Score:2)
I think the whole question is a misunderstanding of analysis, caused by the idiotic Mars ONE bullshit/hype.
Besides the exception of some kind of emergency mission to save the planet like in the Hollywood film Armageddon, there really is no reason so send anyone on a suicide mission.
It's a waste of resources to send a 'suicide mission'....space is the most expensive thing humans do...
Also, If we have the ability to travel to another planet, we have the ability to return or begin permanent colonization.
All "r
Re: (Score:2)
I think the whole question is a misunderstanding of analysis, caused by the idiotic Mars ONE bullshit/hype.
Besides the exception of some kind of emergency mission to save the planet like in the Hollywood film Armageddon, there really is no reason so send anyone on a suicide mission.
It's a waste of resources to send a 'suicide mission'....space is the most expensive thing humans do...
Also, If we have the ability to travel to another planet, we have the ability to return or begin permanent colonization.
All "risk" is a question of engineering.
The Mars ONE hype has brought focus on things, one of which is why is space the most expensive thing that humans do. Its expensive because of the assumption that you have to engineer for every possibility imaginable. If you reduce the possibilities then the engineering simplifies and the cost reduces.
Its not necessarily a 'suicide mission' just a mission that would not involve a planned return to Earth. If such a mission has quantifiable aims and those are met wouldn't that stop it being a waste of resource
"one way" = colonize (Score:2)
i'm all for colonizing the moon and other planets....maybe I misunderstood TFA...
now, if it's a "one way" trip, that means they either have a plan to colonize and live indefinitely...or not
I thought TFA was addressing the latter...a mission that is *not* planned to function indefinitely...one that is essentially a 'suicide mission'
now the Mars One thing...no...it has **NOT** brought focus...quite the opposi
Re: (Score:2)
one of which is why is space the most expensive thing that humans do. Its expensive because of the assumption that you have to engineer for every possibility imaginable. If you reduce the possibilities then the engineering simplifies and the cost reduces.
No, it's expensive because it serves little or no purpose.
Ships are expensive. Jet airliners are expensive. But they don't need "inspiration" to justify their existence. [And they are a hell of a lot less expensive than they would be if a single minor government agency was their sole source of revenue.]
Focus the US space program on developing a commercial industry, not on government funded stunts. (**) Just as NACA (NASA's 1930's predecessor) focused on developing US commercial aviation, not on developing o
Re: (Score:2)
It's as simple as asking: "do you want to take that risk"?
There's plenty of people in the world willing to participate to something that will likely end their lives, as long as they perceive it as heroic. It's one of the freedoms I value in a civilized world.
With that being said, 15 years ago I would have volunteered, but today, for the sake of my family, I wouldn't.
on earh, that person may be a paraplegic, but in space, he would become as agile as the person with legs. Ergo, for this individual (a Steven Hawkins ) health category of person, it would be advantageous.
If the trip has the high risk of failing (death), then why should I be complicit in the risk?
Re: (Score:2)
We would never discover the New World today.
Re:Yes, for any mission (Score:5, Insightful)
if NASA sent an astronaut on a one-way mission, the public outcry would be so deafening that the entire agency would be shuttered before the astronaut arrived at his destination. This is why I voted for "no, never" because I don't think the public will abide any disregard for life, even if it is volunteered.
Re:Yes, for any mission (Score:4, Insightful)
if NASA sent an astronaut on a one-way mission, the public outcry would be so deafening that the entire agency would be shuttered before the astronaut arrived at his destination. This is why I voted for "no, never" because I don't think the public will abide any disregard for life, even if it is volunteered.
I disagree, governments send people on way way missions all the time, they're called soldiers and they know flat out that some of them will die. Obviously it's not the same sending a bunch of guys knowing a percentage won't come back and sending a couple of people knowing they won't come back but I think if it's for a cause the public see as worthwhile not only will they endorse it but honour those who go. I'm thinking such things as first colonisers of Mars (after that we'll hopefully have the technology to get to other potentials like Europa etc pretty quickly and more importantly be able to bring them back), or to prevent a disaster situation a la Armageddon or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
if NASA sent an astronaut on a one-way mission, the public outcry would be so deafening that the entire agency would be shuttered before the astronaut arrived at his destination. This is why I voted for "no, never" because I don't think the public will abide any disregard for life, even if it is volunteered.
I disagree, governments send people on way way missions all the time, they're called soldiers and they know flat out that some of them will die. Obviously it's not the same sending a bunch of guys knowing a percentage won't come back and sending a couple of people knowing they won't come back but I think if it's for a cause the public see as worthwhile not only will they endorse it but honour those who go. I'm thinking such things as first colonisers of Mars (after that we'll hopefully have the technology to get to other potentials like Europa etc pretty quickly and more importantly be able to bring them back), or to prevent a disaster situation a la Armageddon or whatever.
OK, aside from science fiction, find me the worthwhile reason to go. The context of this question is that we have the technology to send an astronaut on a one-way mission but not a two-way mission. If we could set up a martian colony then we could likely bring people back and forth as well.
Re:Yes, for any mission (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Are you on crack? Who in their right mind is going to invest in those things?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to spend a week on the moon or mars if I could afford it, but I just don't see this happening.
As for a reason, you gave none, not answering the GP at all. And no, self-preservation really is a pitiful reason as no such colony could exist without earth's support. For such a colony to be independent would take decades if not centuries of constantly pumping big money without any kind of return.
We can'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's a bad reason, I'm saying the odds of that succeeding in a reasonable timeframe - say in the next 50 years - are just nonexistent. What I'm saying is that there is no way anyone would convince enough people to make this project even examined, hence the project is doomed. The adventures of the last millenium are vastly different - I think you'll give me that, after all they had air to breathe and water to drink - and so the comparison is at best irrelevant. Also, I didn't imply we would ne
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This lady begs to differ: Lynn Rothschild (wiki) [wikipedia.org]
Among her many research topics at NASA is investigating ways in which engineered biological systems can be used to jumpstart the colonisation of Mars, this includes using engineered bacteria to produce materials and food so the colonies can expand while minimising the amount of material that has to be sent from Earth!
Re: (Score:3)
There are hundreds of thousands of people that already disagree with you to the point where they have already signed onto these missions to do anything at all. Build bricks, janitor, they don’t care. The sheer human effort that goes into entertainment alone is mind-boggling in our current planet. I place those hundreds of years investing into getting a nation like America MUCH harder than the Mars mission would be. The sheer cost of wars in human lives and economics wouldn't begin to compare to th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are hundreds of thousands of people that already disagree with you to the point where they have already signed onto these missions to do anything at all.
What price being the first person on Mars, to be up there with Neil Armstrong?
I'd say "priceless".
I'd definitely go...
Re: (Score:3)
Here [theguardian.com] is a more in depth report on the psychological effects. Those effects are non-trivial.
Even that doesn't look that terrible for an early attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Are you on crack? Who in their right mind is going to invest in those things?
Cheaper than the US military, and better long term benefits. What's the fiscal problem again?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Britney or Kim Stanley Robinson...what's the difference
The difference is that the money spent on movies, music, and sports entertainment in the US could
fund NASA 1000 times over and then some.
We have plenty of money and resource to get off this rock if we really wanted to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NASA's budget is around $17b/yr.
So you're saying that Americans spend over $17 trillion every year on movies, music and sports?
Well, the annual movie revenue in the US is about $9 billion.
The annual expenditure on recorded music in the US is about $16 billion.
Annual revenue for US professional sports is about $25 billion.
That leaves $16.95 trillion in your imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah, I was off by an order of magnitude but it still doesn't dispute my point
that we have plenty of money. We spend 10.7 trillion shopping each year.
We spend 10 times NASA's budget on beer and 5 times NASA's budget on our pets.
When we spend 2 billion per year on tattoes and almost a billion on girl scout cookies alone
you know there is plenty of money. It's just a matter on what is important to us.
source: http://mentalfloss.com/article... [mentalfloss.com]
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, sending people one-way to pave the way for later two-way missions might be useful. It'll be a lot easier to make Earth-Mars round trips if we can refuel at Mars, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah bu that's not one-way, that's extended two-way
Re: (Score:3)
It would never be two-way for everyone. Some will die there.
By accident if nothing else.
By that definition, going to my office every day isn't necessarily a 2-way trip. Nor is getting up to use the bathroom, or going to the store for food, or going to bed. But it doesn't mean that I'm going to stop doing those things. I go planning to return, but accept some varying level of risk based on the potential benefit of making the trip. Going to bed is safer than the bathroom. Going to the bathroom is safer than going to the store. Going to the store is safer than going to Mars. But, depending
Survival of the Species (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, aside from science fiction, find me the worthwhile reason to go.
Survival of the species. It is an established scientific fact that there have been mass extinctions on earth associated with massive volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts and it is only a matter of time before there is another (although hopefully a long time!). Having a self sufficient human colony on a different planet is the best way there is to ensure that we survive as a species plus whatever species we take with us would survive as well.
Re:Survival of the Species (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, aside from science fiction, find me the worthwhile reason to go.
Survival of the species. [...] Having a self sufficient human colony on a different planet is the best way there is to ensure that we survive as a species plus whatever species we take with us would survive as well.
It will be centuries before any Mars colony could be truly self-sufficient. (To the degree necessary to survive the loss of humanity on Earth.) And for that entire time it is entirely a burden on the founding nations.
The simple fact is that such a project is not going to be supported for centuries. Hell, even decades is a stretch. People lost interest in Apollo almost immediately after Apollo 11. Missions were being cancelled. Funding cut. The whole post-Apollo wishlist was binned (except for a few like Skylab to use up the already built and paid for hardware.) Both the Soviets and the US completely abandoned the moon for decades, even for robotic missions.
IMO, if you want true long-term "self-sufficiency" you need a web of profitable activities in space. Starting with the industry's economic self-sufficiency on Earth to end the space funding monopsony. That economic "self-sufficiency" would result in a gradual expansion of human activity in space, until eventually Earth is just one piece of the web. At that point, a global disaster on Earth (or indeed anywhere in the system) would be similar to a regional natural disaster today. There are enough other unaffected countries to offer support, aid, rebuilding, etc, to ensure it doesn't result in a long term or permanent decline of the affected nation/region. A web of thousands of for-profit activities and settlements throughout the inner solar system, expanding slowly outwards, each economically self-sufficient (like any profitable business), and while individually not fully self-sufficient, the web collectively would be multiply redundant, able to lose whole chunks without collapsing.
Importantly, by being economically self-sufficient, it would continue to expand when the funding nations inevitably periodically lose interest in big specific goals, moon or Mars, etc, as everyone did with the moon after Apollo.
Similarly, by lowering the cost and increasing the scale of human activity in space, things like science bases on Mars will be no more difficult or expensive than science bases in Antarctica. A minor side-activity, not the sole purpose of HSF. (Imagine the cost of Antarctic bases if it was the primary activity of global shipping/air-travel. Ie, that there was no economically self-sufficient shipping or aircraft industry. Because that's where we are today in human spaceflight.)
Mars can't develop that way. It has no purpose except its own existence; no "exports" except science. And science is already "owned" by the funding agency, it doesn't provide an independent income stream.
Worse, Mars would inevitably be the entire focus for the entire US space program, and due to the cost, probably shared with international partners, so become the sole focus of the entire global space effort. For decades. Until we get bored enough to move on to the next thing. That means that any expansion of human activity, including on Mars, other than supporting the Mars base, would be delayed by decades.
And worse still, judging by all previous space programs (shuttle, space station, Constellation, even Apollo), 90% of the technology wishlist will be cancelled within a year or two, due to the hideous cost of the program. No ISRU, beyond using the atmosphere. No mining ice. No deep cores. No long-duration vehicles. No nuclear reactors. No "domes". No Phobos resupply base. No Mars cycler. Etc etc. Just the bare minimum to meet the stated goal of "humans on Mars". Think ISS on Mars. One base, one site, minimal activity beyond supporting itself and some token science, minimal crew (4 or 6) rotated every six to eight months (if we can improve propulsion.) And there's a huge probability the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still true now. An independent colony would, within a few generations, become a different species adapted to their environment. Think about it for a moment - it'll be a lower gravity environment. Different intensities of radiation. Smaller gene pool.
Different pressures. That's the big one. If the reasons for death or not propagating are different, evolution will quickly bifurcate.
Re: (Score:2)
All soldiers are subjectively immortal. It's only the lad to the left or right of them that will get it.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we loves us up our guns, driving like idiots, driving drunk, child abuse, homelessness, lack of medical care, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
accurate, except for child abuse. think of the children!
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of some kind of Armageddon/Deep Impact scenario ...
Can I volunteer Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer?
Re: (Score:2)
Volunteer to do what, exactly, from my country which is located in Europe?
There ARE other countries out there, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
NO sane human being wants to die, not even once they're old and useless.
So, you're saying that even those who are suffering and won't recover are insane if they do want to die.
In any case, deciding that someone is not 'sane' just because they have different priorities is rather arrogant. I could say just say that these people aren't insane, and it would be just as valid as your statements, which are all merely opinions about a subjective matter.
And before anyone points out soldiers (particularly those with families) who go out to war, at least they have a fighting (literally) chance of survival.
They might have a fighting chance of survival, but we send them into pointless wars knowing that many of them will definitely die.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, deciding that someone is not 'sane' just because they have different priorities is rather arrogant.
They want to consume billions of dollars of other people's resources for their suicidal stunt. That gives those people the right to say, "Are you fucking nuts?"
One way missions are for robots (Score:2, Insightful)
Manned one-way missions are a desperation tactic. You know what you should be aiming for? Getting a man to the Martian surface and returning him back to Earth alive and well.
Space exploration doesn't need to take place in your lifetime. Solve the engineering challenges and the rest will follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly worked for Apollo. Immediately opened up the moon for human settlement. 50 years later, we can go out at night and look up at the glittering cities on the moon and be proud of our half century of achievement.
A better solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Save our astronauts - send politicians instead. Do the world a favor or two...
There should always be contingency plans.. (Score:3)
Government-funded or privately-funded, the first permanent colonies off-world absolutely need to be 100% successes, and by that I mean no deaths, otherwise it'll be like nuclear power all over again: it gets a bad reputation due to something like mis-management, and people in general will sour on the idea for a long time to come. It is my belief that we need to start getting the hell off this planet Real Soon Now, as well as start controlling our rate of reproduction, before we're so overcrowded and so short of resources everywhere that the War to End All Wars starts.
Re: (Score:3)
Government-funded or privately-funded, the first permanent colonies off-world absolutely need to be 100% successes, and by that I mean no deaths,
Considering that humans have finite lifespans, I'd say that requirement dooms the entire concept to failure before it even gets off the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, new plan then. We can found a turtle colony in space!
Immortal space turtles just sound amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if we can teach them Ninjitsu. Because that would be epic!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With a well managed breeding policy, we could make it turtles all the way down!
Literally!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I voted (3), but really, the answer depends on the purpose of the mission, and the overall purpose of the space program.
If the point is to colonize other worlds, open new frontiers, escape the confines of this single planet in order to ensure the survival of humans and other terrestrial species, then there's no point. If you can't establish a viable colony, then you're not ready yet. Send robots until you are. Build and expand in stages.
If the purpose is commercial, then the answer is similar but for a d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I can help with some rules of thumb:
1 - If there is no breathable athmosphere, it will not succeed.
2 - If you don't produce anything to eat, it will not succeed.
3 - If there is no local manufacturing, it will not succeed.
4 - If you can not keep a rabbit, dog, rat, or whatever alive, it will not succeed.
After you do all that, yes, maybe you'll have a reason to test it with people.
Terra was explored when life was cheap. (Score:4, Interesting)
Death is INEVITABLE. Death is useful to the species. Death facilitates Evolution.
Death is not unjust, and the choice to sacrifice "some life time" in return for furthering valuable goals should be open to those who wish to make it.
Why should you, I or anyone else be cruelly denied the chance to expend some of our lives in return for the greater good
of our species?
If a soldier diving on a grenade for his buddies deserves the Medal of Honor, why should free choice to make a vastly more valuable sacrifice be denied???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the first permanent colonies off-world absolutely need to be 100% successes, and by that I mean no deaths
We can't even guarantee that building football stadia [google.co.uk] here on Earth. Given that any colonisation would be taking place in a hostile environment your requirement absolutely rule out any attempt.
Given you believe that we have to start getting off the planet your requirements will have to be relaxed, in which case it becomes a question of what is the acceptable risk. There is an assumption being made in the negative comments that a one-way mission would be a short one that would involve a premature death. I'm
Bruce Willis should go ... (Score:2)
An only if the earth needs to be saved from an Asteroid with bad physics.
North Korea should do this! (Score:2)
With the "Fearless Leader", of course. Turkey's Erdogan could be the co-pilot
Should NASA Send Astronauts On Voluntary One-Way M (Score:3, Informative)
Fact is, the "Age of Exploration" involved MANY men sailing farther away from home in terms of real support (opposite side of the world?) and many didn't return, including Magellan himself. They volunteered for various reasons: money, fame, employment, nothing better to do, loyalty to the monarch, etc. One could easily say space is that next "Age of Exploration."
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that they had a hope of returning in the "Age of Exploration". One way trips have no hope of returning. Also, sending people was the only way to explore in the "Age of Exploration". Today we have alternatives. Sending a people to their death to do something robots can do is unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same thing. Probably the *most* isolated ships in history were whaling ships who weren't out at see to hit other ports or engage other ships. And even those ships still had large crews for socialization, relatively huge open spaces to move about, access to the sea to supplement their food, rain for water, and knew in a pinch they could hit an island for repairs or supplies.
A near-future trip to Mars would be unprecedented in its isolation, margin of error, and cramped quarters. IMO, the reason it
Different situations (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's a permanent colony, then of course. That's one-way, but with a solid intent and good odds of dying only when old age catches up.
If it's a long-term mission, but with only X years of supplies and no plans for return, then there needs to be some strong benefit. Altering the course of an Earth-bound asteroid? Worth it. Perhaps some extremely useful science could also justify this - if we somehow get a sudden radio broadcast from Europa, sending a crew on a suicide mission to investigate might be worth it. But the xenogeology and such that we'd be doing on a Mars mission would not really justify a suicide mission, unless we can continually resupply them (but at that point, they're basically a colony without population growth).
If it's just a "put feet on the rock to claim it", hell no.
How many vacation days do they get? (Score:3)
I mean, realisticly -- if NASA sends someone on a one-way trip ... are they then obligated to keep paying them until they die?
What about once they get old, and the other people on the mission have to start taking care of them?
Or do you have to implement a euthenasia policy? And then the federal government has to approve it, which would likely open all sorts of protests, etc.
People will change their minds (Score:2)
After listening to a guy on the radio slowly losing his mind from the isolation. It'll never happen...on purpose.
At some point, colonization will be ... (Score:2)
If "one-way" implies using your favorite method of suicide after a few months, then no.
What does it prove? (Score:2)
Going there to die is a bit like proving you can survive in the wilderness as long as you don't run out of canned food or that man can fly by being shot out of a catapult. We can put you in a bunker and as long as you don't get exposed to too much heat or cold or radiation or G-forces and have food and water and breathable air you won't die, whether we do it here or ship it to Mars. If survival is not important we can point a rocket in almost any direction, it's keeping you alive that is the accomplishment.
Why? (Score:3)
Are they better than robots? No.
Change "reasonable chance of survival" into "very likely chance of survival" and I would change my mind, but "reasonable chance of survival" in NASA and space exploration terms means something like a 1/1000 chance of death (just pulling a number out of the air).
If you want something organic up there quick then send a monkey. Then, after the monkey has not died a horrible death, send a person.
I want to live in space. I want space colonies. But I don't want space exploration and colonies to be built on the graves of those who came before us.
I just don't see the benefit. Furthermore I feel that suicidal space exploration has a very dark economic shadow to it.
send more and better robots. That way we don't kill heroes and we also get advances in robotics.
I can't believe I'm even saying this, but it's how I feel.
Re: (Score:2)
I can travel as far in 15 minutes than what Curiosity has traveled in its entire time on Mars.
5km in 15 minutes? In an EVA suit? Seems unlikely. Even if you weren't stopping at hundreds to sites to chemically and spectrographically analyse samples.
If you put me on the surface of mars today
Then it would cost vastly more than all the probes that have ever landed on Mars combined.
Putting you one Mars with enough lab equipment to be useful would double that cost. And you'd double the cost again if you want to spend more than a few hours alive on the surface. Double again if you want to spend more than a month.
Putting you on Mars and bringing yo
Wrong question (Score:2)
Google up on articles on the Lazarus Doctor (he works on patients who have nominally died of hypothermia) and on the new experimental saline blood substitute for potentially fatal injuries (the paramedics swap the patient's blood for the solution, deep-freeze the patient and reverse the process at hospital, eliminating all stress and trauma to the body in transit).
The theoretical duration you can perform suspended animation in real life is unknown, but is estimated to be many months.
The practical duration i
I voted the 'it's up to them' option, but ... (Score:2)
Sorry to bring it up, but it was a one-way mission for the zealots who crashed the planes into the two towers, back in 2001. If we want a volunteer for a suicide mission, then we don't want a suicide-bomber sort-of guy, we want a sacrifice-for-the-common-good sort-of guy. Now, how we do find that sort of person, with questions...
Volunteer (Score:2)
I'd volunteer AGW deniers except I'm afraid they'd screw up Mars too.
If NASA were an ISP... (Score:4, Funny)
Aspiring Astronaut, why join NASA?
-Experience blazing speed* inside one of our rockets
-Survivor rate up to 100%
-Professional customer support associate available 24/7.
*Upload speed may be significantly faster than download back to Earth, other conditions apply.
You're not sending them to die (Score:2)
You're sending them to live somewhere else until they die. Or, they can stay here and die, too.
Let's let it be by choice, if there is a benefit to mankind.
Not unlike the colonial settlers from Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, that's a massive financial commitment, and I'd much prefer a return method be an option.
If humanity spent on science and exploration half the money spent on killing each other we'd probably have FTL capability by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing Option (Score:3)
Why send humans (Score:2)
I wish we could get past this obsession of feeling like we have to send humans everywhere (in the short run). (I'm thinking of long distance missions more than popping up to the ISS.)
If you look at the overall costs associated with programs sending humans versus programs that are all robotic, we could fund many times as many robotic missions for the cost of one human-containing mission. How many Hubble's or Cassini's could we fund for the cost of one manned Mars mission? I'm as big a fan of the space progra
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that robot missions are important, but I think it is more about a push to force humans to expand their knowledge into these areas. Our human space travel knowledge has not really expanded a lot in the last 40 years.
And the only way that we seem to force ourselves to consider the issues you discuss here is to push toward a long term goal like this. If the Russians hadn't launched Sputnik, I don't think our satellite technology, human space knowledge and all of the secondary technologies that were c
PROTIP (Score:3)
PROTIP: None of us has any chance of surviving, wherever we end up.
Re: (Score:2)
If we, as a society, are going to spend significant resources to execute a space mission, we would want to maximize our chances of success. That means putting the best and brightest astronauts on board the space ship. Somehow, I don't think we will find the optimal candidate on death row.
Re: (Score:2)
Class-D personnel? [scp-wiki.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the "inspiration" argument.
Surely Apollo was the archetypal inspirational mission? Half the world tuned in to watch Apollo 11. Yet missions were cancelled, no follow-ups funded, and apparently the TV ratings for every mission after Apollo 11 dropped so low the TV networks quickly stopped doing live crosses (because more people were annoyed by the interruption to their regular shows than were interested.)
If Apollo couldn't do it, a manned moon landing in the 1960s at the height of the Cold War, t
Re: (Score:2)
The US is not broke. GDP is rising. Corporate profits are at record levels. The level of wealth of the top 0.1% and especially 0.01% has never been higher, both in absolute terms, but also as a share of the economy.
That your country has chosen to concentrate its wealth on a few at the top, while the share of wealth of the bottom 90% declines, is hardly inevitable.
This is like people whining about the US Post Service being "bankrupt". Congress chose to require the USPS to pre-fund 75 years of pension liabili