

UK team designs human mission to Mars - stettix
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22952441

======
bobdvb
My view is that if we are going to have a Mars manned mission it should be
one-way. Send some resources to the planet, automated mechanisms to build out
some basic infrastructure (cabins, greenhouses, barricades, etc). Then once
things are in place, and a self-sustaining environment can be built find some
people willing to spend the rest of their lives there, perhaps older people
but families wouldn't be impossible. Think of a pioneer spirit, there would be
no end of people willing to put their name down for a one way trip!

The main reason I say one way? Given it is an 21 month minimum round trip or
even five years, the health (mostly bone density) issues are astounding. So,
let the people decide to be the first Martian colonists and let it be a one
way trip. If the preparation package was sufficient I know I would like to put
my name down but I suspect that my wife wouldn't, so that vetoes me, but I
know I am not alone.

Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that
that worries those in charge. But lets remember that these trips aren't
without risk, so lets say that the risk is better managed if they just stay on
Mars.

~~~
Udo
I think the appeal of making Mars trips one-way comes from the romanticization
of the early American settlements and not primarily from technical concerns.
From a technical perspective, having return capabilities adds complication in
the short run, but it also solves a lot of problems (technical,
administrative, logistical, and psychological).

Total colony failure is a real danger for Mars colonization, as it was for
historical settlers. If our first Mars colony is a total loss, you can bet
there won't be another one. If Martian settlers had space faring capabilities
they could avert this scenario and potentially even return to Earth if things
got out of control.

Establishing back-and-forth routes, both slow robotic ones, as well as the
occasional human shuttle, means Mars will be a real extension of Earth instead
of a stagnant, extreme colony. It means there will be pressure for
technological advancement in this area which wouldn't be necessary if we had
just a big one-way rocket. Without this pressure, spaceship design and
propulsion won't get a significant boost.

If we choose to put this one-way barrier up, let's not kid ourselves, it will
be because it's dramatic and romantic. In the short term, this decision will
put human lives in danger. It will stifle innovation by willfully ignoring a
big tech application. Over the long term, if the colony survives, it will lead
to a technologically superior Mars that has no meaningful ties to Earth - and
with that, potentially, war.

Having a two-way system in place will most likely finally commoditize space
travel and in one fell swoop will eliminate all the problems I talked about.

 _> Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from
that that worries those in charge._

Humans will die "in space" anyway. If we choose to venture out into the solar
system, people are going to die out there. As I said, a one-way transport
system combined with a loss of the first colony _will_ result in a lot of
deaths and it _will_ result in a total cancellation of any further
colonization efforts.

Making transports one-way is a _choice_ , not a necessity. I would argue it's
an illogical one with very impractical consequences.

------
harrytuttle
I think we're proposing these Mars missions too soon. We need to concentrate
on producing propulsion systems and shielding systems that get us there and
back fast and safely first.

I'm not talking about some starship enterprise, but something a little meatier
than a glorified coke can.

~~~
vitno
Both of those are solved problems, and actually have been for quite a while.

You should check out the Mars Direct plan proposed by Robert Zubrin.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct)

~~~
harrytuttle
Thanks and as usual, canned by Obama.

Perhaps the private sector can take this one on?

~~~
moocowduckquack
That was the constellation program, which was mainly a return to the moon. A
commitment to NASA visiting Mars was kept.

------
znowi
That's nice, but my money is on Elon Musk :)

~~~
eksith
Is it just me, or is he spreading himself awfully thin these days? I mean, I
don't know him personally so it's entirely possible this is all within his
capability, but "Loop transport", "LEO Spaceship", Tesla and now Mars too?

~~~
TeMPOraL
LEO spaceship and Mars are on the same development track (humans as
interplanetary species / retirement on Mars is the final destination, rockets
and LEO spaceship are first steps on the track). Also it's nice how he managed
to make his three companies support each other by flowing tech and cash
between them (e.g. Tesla using SolarCity tech for charging).

------
jakeybob
They say "Every part of this mission scenario has been demonstrated one way or
the other" but I'm struggling to think of a proper artificial gravity
demonstration. Are there any?

Gemini 11 had some success with a similar scheme involving tethering
themselves to their Aegena craft and spinning up. However this was far from
straightforward and only created tiny amounts (Wikipedia says 0.00015g) of
artificial acceleration.

In order to get 1g from a 50m tether it would have to spin at a little over
4rpm, which seems like quite a lot for such a big thing. Also the difference
in acceleration between an astronaut's head and feet would be something like
0.3 m/s/s, which hasn't (AFAIK) been tested.

The Gemini experiment was amazing (especially given it was some way down the
list of mission objectives) but I don't think it qualifies as a full
demonstration of the technique. I know this project is not intended to be a
finished design, but they give the impression that artificial gravity
generation is a solved problem.

~~~
elnate
Exactly. With a diameter of 4m on this, even if they could get 1g at the edge,
would still leave the astronauts heads at almost 0g. Makes me wonder what kind
of scientists worked on this.

------
Bosence
The British Interplanetary Society did something similar a few years back:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Boreas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Boreas)

