If you were qualified, had the opportunity, and nothing was impeding you,
would you take a one-way trip into Outer Space?

Following is a thought-provoking news article from the New York Times.


A One-Way Ticket to Mars

By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS - NYT

August 31, 2009


NOW that the hype surrounding the 40th anniversary of the Moon landings has
come and gone, we are faced with the grim reality that if we want to send
humans back to the Moon the investment is likely to run in excess of $150
billion. The cost to get to Mars could easily be two to four times that, if
it is possible at all.

This is the issue being wrestled with by a NASA panel, convened this year
and led by Norman Augustine, a former chief executive of Lockheed Martin,
that will in the coming weeks present President Obama with options for the
near-term future of human spaceflight. It is quickly becoming clear that
going to the Moon or Mars in the next decade or two will be impossible
without a much bigger budget than has so far been allocated. Is it worth it?

The most challenging impediment to human travel to Mars does not seem to
involve the complicated launching, propulsion, guidance or landing
technologies but something far more mundane: the radiation emanating from
the Sun's cosmic rays. The shielding necessary to ensure the astronauts do
not get a lethal dose of solar radiation on a round trip to Mars may very
well make the spacecraft so heavy that the amount of fuel needed becomes
prohibitive.

There is, however, a way to surmount this problem while reducing the cost
and technical requirements, but it demands that we ask this vexing question:
Why are we so interested in bringing the Mars astronauts home again?

While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return is jarring upon
first hearing, the rationale for one-way trips into space has both
historical and practical roots. Colonists and pilgrims seldom set off for
the New World with the expectation of a return trip, usually because the
places they were leaving were pretty intolerable anyway. Give us a century
or two and we may turn the whole planet into a place from which many people
might be happy to depart.

Moreover, one of the reasons that is sometimes given for sending humans into
space is that we need to move beyond Earth if we are to improve our species'
chances of survival should something terrible happen back home. This
requires people to leave, and stay away.

There are more immediate and pragmatic reasons to consider one-way human
space exploration missions.

First, money. Much of the cost of a voyage to Mars will be spent on coming
home again. If the fuel for the return is carried on the ship, this greatly
increases the mass of the ship, which in turn requires even more fuel.

The president of the Mars Society, Robert Zubrin, has offered one possible
solution: two ships, sent separately. The first would be sent unmanned and,
once there, combine onboard hydrogen with carbon dioxide from the Martian
atmosphere to generate the fuel for the return trip; the second would take
the astronauts there, and then be left behind. But once arrival is decoupled
from return, one should ask whether the return trip is really necessary.

Surely if the point of sending astronauts is to be able to carry out
scientific experiments that robots cannot do (something I am highly
skeptical of and one of the reasons I don't believe we should use science to
attempt to justify human space exploration), then the longer they spend on
the planet the more experiments they can do.

Moreover, if the radiation problems cannot be adequately resolved then the
longevity of astronauts signing up for a Mars round trip would be severely
compromised in any case. As cruel as it may sound, the astronauts would
probably best use their remaining time living and working on Mars rather
than dying at home.

If it sounds unrealistic to suggest that astronauts would be willing to
leave home never to return alive, then consider the results of several
informal surveys I and several colleagues have conducted recently. One of my
peers in Arizona recently accompanied a group of scientists and engineers
from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on a geological field trip. During the
day, he asked how many would be willing to go on a one-way mission into
space. Every member of the group raised his hand. The lure of space travel
remains intoxicating for a generation brought up on "Star Trek"
and "Star
Wars."

We might want to restrict the voyage to older astronauts, whose longevity is
limited in any case. Here again, I have found a significant fraction of
scientists older than 65 who would be willing to live out their remaining
years on the red planet or elsewhere. With older scientists, there would be
additional health complications, to be sure, but the necessary medical
personnel and equipment would still probably be cheaper than designing a
return mission.

Delivering food and supplies to these new pioneers -- along with the tools
to grow and build whatever they need, for however long they live on the red
planet -- is likewise more reasonable and may be less expensive than
designing a ticket home. Certainly, as in the Zubrin proposal, unmanned
spacecraft could provide the crucial supply lines.

The largest stumbling block to a consideration of one-way missions is
probably political. NASA and Congress are unlikely to do something that
could be perceived as signing the death warrants of astronauts.

Nevertheless, human space travel is so expensive and so dangerous that we
are going to need novel, even extreme solutions if we really want to expand
the range of human civilization beyond our own planet. To boldly go where no
one has gone before does not require coming home again.

Lawrence M. Krauss, the director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State
University, is the author of "The Physics of 'Star Trek.'"


Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1