NASA has declared that there will be continuing robotic exploration of Mars, but the privately funded one-way trip to this planet has gained much more interest because of the human involvement. This trip, which already has 400 volunteers signed up as new settlers to this planet, could happen in around 20 years. Although it would be interesting for volunteers to go, this would mean a bleak future for them. And by a bleak future, I mean one without returning to Earth. These colonists would arrive at Mars and experience the new land unlike any other has, but they would be finishing out their lives there. Supplies could be sent every few months, but it would be impossible to return to their home planet.
Space plans like these have me baffled. Yes, there would be incredible new discoveries and it would be phenomenal to see the outcomes, but there would be an uprising in terms of moral issues. If there would be even one volunteer that changed their mind after the fact, a disaster would occur and the situation could culminate into a real-life science fiction horror. So, I say we stick with the plans that have been thought through and seem ideal in exploration.
With these ideas in place, the space program can only go forward in terms of its knowledge and research. There will continue to be better and better conceptions within the realm of space and technology, but to prove that it is a priority and will generate notice, we need to extend our funds to pull ourselves out of the sense of chaos our planet seems to be in currently.
Article comments
1 - Pedro
Would you agree with me that NASA could/should be partially, if not completely, privatized?
[Personal contact info deleted]
Thank you, very nice article of urs.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Parts of NASA could certainly do with being privatised but it is as a research and development agency that it has made its most significant contributions, and most pure R&D is funded by government. NASA is one of the most maligned and underfunded government agencies, taking up only about 2% of the federal budget, yet people (members of Congress included) still have the perception that space exploration wastes huge quantities of taxpayer money.
The task of ferrying humans into space can and should be done by private launch companies, and this is in fact current administration policy. Obama also quite rightly cancelled the Constellation program, which was duplicative, inefficient and over budget, in order to focus NASA's efforts on robotic exploration, which has yielded the agency many of its most spectacular results and returns, and on manned missions to Mars and to the asteroids: places we haven't already been to. (Not saying that we should abandon the Moon, but the private sector is quite capable of managing a restored human presence there too.) This space vision is the most far-sighted and imaginative since Kennedy's, IMO. Such a shame that it will almost certainly be abandoned the moment Obama leaves office.
Couple of other points: it's unlikely that a space elevator would have much mileage as an amusement park ride, since the trip to orbit would take hours or days. There would be some initial novelty value, but it would quickly become as tedious as long-haul air travel.
And the one-way option to Mars is broadly analogous to the voyages of the Mayflower pilgrims and other early American settlers, who departed England with full knowledge that they probably would never return and no intention of doing so. They certainly didn't regard their future as bleak, nor did it turn out to be. The Martian pioneers will be of this mindset.
There were of course some New World colonists who later regretted their choice, but changing their minds was not an option. They either handled it themselves or were dealt with by the social mechanisms of the new colonies. The first humans on Mars will expect and experience these same challenges.