• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

If you could take a rocket on a one way trip to Mars, would you go?

MailBoxHead

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
412
0
0
The first person to step on another planet. Your name would become a part of history and would be known as long as the human race lasts.

I guess I'm saying I would, although I really don't know how many years of life I'd be trading for it.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Would I just be stuck on Mars til life support ran out in a few weeks, or would I be spending years upon years on Mars?

Maybe if the latter were true. I could spend 5 years carrying around rocks to make a HUUUuuuuuge "S O S" on the surface.

Oh, and the probability of me saying yes would increase proportionally with the cuteness of the 3 female crewmates with me :D
 

MailBoxHead

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
412
0
0
Many people wouldn't go if you were guaranteed a return trip.

Let me know if you'd not go in any case before just saying no.
 

TonyG

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2000
2,021
2
81
If it was a mission to stay a few years, or 5 and then have a return rocket come to bring me back to earth, I would jump on the chance instantly.
If it was to stay for good, no returning to earth, then I would probably not go.
 

freebee

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2000
4,043
0
0
If they shipped a buncha hot babes over and told us to populate mars, hellz yea!!!!
 

stormbv

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2000
3,446
1
0
What's the big fascination with space? We're all on a one-way trip right now called Life.
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
1
0
Eh, probably not. I mean, it's not like when you die there you can look back and regret the decision so that's not a reason not to go. On the other hand when you die there you can't really look back with pride at being etched into human history either. Might as well stay here. *shrugs*
 

Ionizer86

Diamond Member
Jun 20, 2001
5,292
0
76
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
 

dman

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
9,110
0
76
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Couldn't they just spin the spaceship enough to create artificial gravity... I don't think that'd be my biggest concern. In any event, I don't think I'd go, but, I guess you can change the old game from:

If you were ever stranded on a desert island...

to

If you were ever sent on a one way mission to mars....
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,048
17
81
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Exercise much?
 

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Exercise much?
Also, the chance of a ship going to Mars without artificial gravity while carrying Human's is slim. The transition from zero G to about one third G on Mars would be too much for a body that's been in space for that long, even with exercise. Also, a human trip would most likely be a direct route, so it would only be 6-7 months.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Exercise much?
Also, the chance of a ship going to Mars without artificial gravity while carrying Human's is slim. The transition from zero G to about one third G on Mars would be too much for a body that's been in space for that long, even with exercise. Also, a human trip would most likely be a direct route, so it would only be 6-7 months.
Nonsense... we've had plenty of scientist/astronauts in space for months at a time. What's the record for cosmonauts? 438 days.
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj96/supp1.html

They're doing plenty of research on the types of exercise that should be done to minimize the calcium loss and maintain muscle strength.

Also, the plural of human is humans, no apostrophe. But, you are correct about the duration of the trip... most likely it would be a direct route rather than a slingshot around venus and earth. The indirect route is cheapest and would probably be used for supplies, etc.

Just think about it... for 7 months (and presumably longer once you reach the Mars surface), your wastes (urine, feces) would be reprocessed to give you fresh drinking water again.
 

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Exercise much?
Also, the chance of a ship going to Mars without artificial gravity while carrying Human's is slim. The transition from zero G to about one third G on Mars would be too much for a body that's been in space for that long, even with exercise. Also, a human trip would most likely be a direct route, so it would only be 6-7 months.
Nonsense... we've had plenty of scientist/astronauts in space for months at a time. What's the record for cosmonauts? 438 days.
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj96/supp1.html

They're doing plenty of research on the types of exercise that should be done to minimize the calcium loss and maintain muscle strength.

Also, the plural of human is humans, no apostrophe. But, you are correct about the duration of the trip... most likely it would be a direct route rather than a slingshot around venus and earth. The indirect route is cheapest and would probably be used for supplies, etc.

Just think about it... for 7 months (and presumably longer once you reach the Mars surface), your wastes (urine, feces) would be reprocessed to give you fresh drinking water again.
You missed what I said. I know people have been up there for years at a time, but do you know how much recovery they went through? If we went to a mission to Mars, we want instant ability to do work. We can't have a recovery period. A human in space for seven months in micro-gravity alone with exercise will still need to recover once the surface of Mars is reached. If the spacecraft has artificial gravity, this recovery time will not be needed. What the plans are is to have the craft emulate Martian gravity because 1) It requires less rotations per minute, and 2) It would have the astronauts already acclimated to the Martian gravity.
 

matt426malm

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,280
0
0
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Exercise much?
Also, the chance of a ship going to Mars without artificial gravity while carrying Human's is slim. The transition from zero G to about one third G on Mars would be too much for a body that's been in space for that long, even with exercise. Also, a human trip would most likely be a direct route, so it would only be 6-7 months.
Nonsense... we've had plenty of scientist/astronauts in space for months at a time. What's the record for cosmonauts? 438 days.
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj96/supp1.html

They're doing plenty of research on the types of exercise that should be done to minimize the calcium loss and maintain muscle strength.

Also, the plural of human is humans, no apostrophe. But, you are correct about the duration of the trip... most likely it would be a direct route rather than a slingshot around venus and earth. The indirect route is cheapest and would probably be used for supplies, etc.

Just think about it... for 7 months (and presumably longer once you reach the Mars surface), your wastes (urine, feces) would be reprocessed to give you fresh drinking water again.
You missed what I said. I know people have been up there for years at a time, but do you know how much recovery they went through? If we went to a mission to Mars, we want instant ability to do work. We can't have a recovery period. A human in space for seven months in micro-gravity alone with exercise will still need to recover once the surface of Mars is reached. If the spacecraft has artificial gravity, this recovery time will not be needed. What the plans are is to have the craft emulate Martian gravity because 1) It requires less rotations per minute, and 2) It would have the astronauts already acclimated to the Martian gravity.
Have the module your traveling in be tied by metal cable to a small upper-stage burner. Step two get it spinning, presto artifcial gravity. Just detatch before you land. Cheap, easy artificail gravity. Better than a ring shaped space ship in terms of cost.

I wouldn't go on a suicide mission but one with greenhouse, way to extact oxygen/water, ect. Yeah!
 

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Originally posted by: matt426malm
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: KraziKid
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: Ionizer86
No, it'd take like 16 months (IIRC) to get there, and by that time my skeleton would be so frail from (lack of) gravity.
Exercise much?
Also, the chance of a ship going to Mars without artificial gravity while carrying Human's is slim. The transition from zero G to about one third G on Mars would be too much for a body that's been in space for that long, even with exercise. Also, a human trip would most likely be a direct route, so it would only be 6-7 months.
Nonsense... we've had plenty of scientist/astronauts in space for months at a time. What's the record for cosmonauts? 438 days.
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/jj96/supp1.html

They're doing plenty of research on the types of exercise that should be done to minimize the calcium loss and maintain muscle strength.

Also, the plural of human is humans, no apostrophe. But, you are correct about the duration of the trip... most likely it would be a direct route rather than a slingshot around venus and earth. The indirect route is cheapest and would probably be used for supplies, etc.

Just think about it... for 7 months (and presumably longer once you reach the Mars surface), your wastes (urine, feces) would be reprocessed to give you fresh drinking water again.
You missed what I said. I know people have been up there for years at a time, but do you know how much recovery they went through? If we went to a mission to Mars, we want instant ability to do work. We can't have a recovery period. A human in space for seven months in micro-gravity alone with exercise will still need to recover once the surface of Mars is reached. If the spacecraft has artificial gravity, this recovery time will not be needed. What the plans are is to have the craft emulate Martian gravity because 1) It requires less rotations per minute, and 2) It would have the astronauts already acclimated to the Martian gravity.
Have the module your traveling in be tied by metal cable to a small upper-stage burner. Step two get it spinning, presto artifcial gravity. Just detatch before you land. Cheap, easy artificail gravity. Better than a ring shaped space ship in terms of cost.

I wouldn't go on a suicide mission but one with greenhouse, way to extact oxygen/water, ect. Yeah!
That's exactly what I am talking about. The spacecraft would have two modules that are connected by a tether. The crew module would revolve around the support module.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY