Would an One-Way Ticket to Mars be Acceptable?

NYTimes posted an article about Mars being the next frontier and that it might require astronauts to never come back, in order to cut down costs. At first glance this sounds inhuman, but the reality is, sacrifices must be made for the human race to survive. I am personally not against such a solution if it is to accelerate our space program and bring humans closer to space colonization. To me (and Mr Spock), the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I would personally be a volunteer in such a scenario, if I had the knowledge and fitness required.

13 Comments »

Tom Dison wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 PM PST:

Actually, I was thinking of my boss…


Andrew wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 PM PST:

Q: Would an One-Way Ticket to Mars be Acceptable?

If an astronaut were to opt for such a ticket, out of a sense for grand adventure, or whatever, I’d support them. It is their life, their destiny.

If they were doing it because the thought of being sacrificial lambs at the altar of mankind has been instilled in them? No, I wouldn’t support that.


pluijzer wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 PM PST:

Why do we need to sacrifice beings to progress faster, what’s wrong with a slow substitutable progress. The sun isn’t going supernova for a, long long long time and the colonisation of of other worlds isn’t going to help with our overpopulation problem. And if there is a meteor coming and we fail to do anything about it, we don’t need to worry about two-way tickets, or money.
Sure it would be exciting if all that sci-fi stuff would be real within our life time, but there is no need to rush, and it’s immoral and selfish to sacrifice people (even if they do it voluntarily) for it.

And if it becomes acceptable to sacrifice humans to accelerate our space programme (which isn’t really a high priority at the moment), what’s next?


ojimenez wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 5:50 PM PST:

On March 1, 1954 An American hydrogen bomb called “Bravo” was detonated on the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The Blast was the most powerful U.S. nuclear explosion ever- the equivalent of 15 million tons of TNT, a thousand times stronger than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

The radioactive contamination forced the American government to evacuate the islanders. Three years later, in June 1957 the people were returned to their contaminated homeland with the approval of the U.S. government.

“The habitation of these people on the island will afford most valuable ecological radiation data on human beings.” states a confidential memo. The study went on from 1957 to 1985. Many died from cancer and their offspring are still being affected.

Sacrificing of humans has been shamefully going on for far too long! (and that’s only the ones we know about)

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/li-life/cold-war-fallout-for-brookhaven-national-lab-1.1377897


snorkel wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 PM PST:

We need to concentrate on better propulsions systems instead of these primitive chemical rockets.

With the proper propulsion system there would be no need for a one way ticket to mars.


snorkel wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 8:21 PM PST:

I could see that for a trip to the nearest star, but not to Mars. If we could come up with better propulsion systems a round trip to Mars would not be a big deal.


mikesum32 wrote on September 3rd, 2009 at 11:00 PM PST:

ojimenez

There’s a big difference between voluntary sacrifice and tricking someone. Frankly, I don’t think it’s happen anyway, and if it did they would be sent to live, not to just go there and die.


l3v1 wrote on September 4th, 2009 at 12:39 AM PST:

Well, as some things are going on this planer, the idea of starting anew doesn’t sound that bad. Of course, some air in the atmosphere would make things a bit more appealing 🙂 Until then, I think I could put together a fair list of people I’d like to see far far away 😀


Dominique wrote on September 4th, 2009 at 9:42 AM PST:

I believe that for Greek astronauts fitness is not required but just the ability to smoke two packs a day and wear leather pants.


Hefner wrote on September 4th, 2009 at 10:31 AM PST:

“This is Houston, we got a problem… we can’t bring you back” ….ok!, now that we are sure that you can throw things here in the red planet, at least send me a life supply of food, or what did you suggest me to eat here… sand?


ojimenez wrote on September 4th, 2009 at 12:00 PM PST:

mikesum32:

You are correct, there is a difference. Nevertheless, “deception” comes in subtle forms. The technological byproducts of the space program are many, but commercial use of the technology developed by the science that put a man on the moon went first to military purposes. Paraphrasing Gene Hackman: “The Hubble telescope looks up at the stars, but it also looks down at you! ( Enemy of the State)


William Eggington wrote on September 5th, 2009 at 1:07 PM PST:

I have a hard time understanding why we have to GO to Mars at all. . . the robots we have sent up there have been doing great. Send some more that could make us a little house, maybe mine for fuel, gather raw materials etc.


Billy Wayne wrote on September 11th, 2009 at 6:35 PM PST:

Sign me up. I’ll go where no man has gone before. Life on Earth sucks anyway.


Comments are closed as this blog post is now archived.

Lines, paragraphs break automatically. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

The URI to TrackBack this blog entry is this. And here is the RSS 2.0 for comments on this post.