
Why Did 400 People Volunteer for a One-Way Trip to Mars? - solipsist
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/breakingorbit/2011/01/400-volunteer-for-one-way-mars-trip.html
======
iwwr
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.

~~~
geuis
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.

~~~
nyellin
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.

~~~
gst
"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.

~~~
nyellin
"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?

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

------
AllahJesus
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?

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

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

------
iconfinder
I might have something to do with Total Recall.

------
Qz
I would go... in the second mission.

------
zwadia
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.

