Manned Mission to Mars?

[Philkilla]

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/26/one-way-mission-to-mars-us-soldiers-will-go/

One-Way Mission to Mars: US Soldiers Will Go

Written by Nancy Atkinson

An article published on Universe Today back in March of this year detailing former NASA engineer Jim McLane's idea for on a one-way, one-person mission to Mars generated a lot of interest. The many comments on the subject posted here on UT and numerous other websites such as ABC News ranged from full support to complete disbelief of the idea. McLane's concept has literally gone around the world, and a journalist from Spain, Javier Yanes who writes for the newspaper Publico shared with me his correspondence with a US soldier stationed in Afghanistan, who says that battle-hardened soldiers would be the perfect choice to send on a mission of no return to a new world. SFC William H. Ruth III says he and the men in the 101st Airborne Division are ready and willing to go.

SFC Ruth wrote, "While reading Jim McLane and Nancy Atkinson’s thoughts on Space Colonization, I started to realize that we ‘ALL’ have lost our way. We have become so consumed by petty differences and dislikes of others that we all have forgotten our pre destiny of something better."

And what is the 'something better' that Ruth envisions? Military personnel from different countries joining together to make "the ultimate sacrifice" of forging the way to establish an outpost on another world, like Mars.

"Here is an ‘out of the box idea’," Ruth writes. "Let the heroes of ‘All’ our countries, for once, risk the ultimate sacrifice for something greater than one man’s idea. Maybe once let these men and woman that rise every morning and say ‘today I will stand for something’ and say ‘evil will not prevail, not on my watch’. For once let them volunteer for us all, you never know, mankind, the human race. It might just catch on if we let it."

Ruth continues, "Will we falter at a hint of death or danger? Or will we do now what so many in ‘ALL’ of the world’s history has done before us. NASA of all thinking societies should understand this. Would there even be an America or NASA if a man named Columbus had not pursued a dangerous and possibly deadly voyage to a new world? He certainly had to consider whether or not he would ever return home to see all those he loved so dearly. But what of those aboard his ships, those that left Spain knowing that they would never return. Those few that willingly risked all for the chance at a new world and a new future, could they have possibly known what effects they would have had on the future due to their sacrifices? Now can we have enough vision to see our destiny, can we, for a moment, see past our petty differences of race and religion to see…peace, prosperity and possibly a new world."

Ruth says 15 years in the military has prepared him for such a mission. "So I am no fool and I am no stranger to what some might call high risks," he says. "Hundreds of thousands of fighting men and woman from around this world have walked, rode, swam and even jumped into what some would call a high risk situation. Some even considered suicide missions, ones with low probability of success. And why, what did they risk all for? Each and every one of us, even those throughout this earth that has made that choice, risk all for what we believed would make our world better."

Ruth first began pondering such a mission after reading a quote by Stephen Hawking on Space.com: "The discovery of the New World made a profound difference on the old," Hawking said. "Spreading out into space will have an even greater effect. It will completely change the future of the human race, and maybe determine whether we have any future at all."

Ruth sent an email to Space.com's Anthony Duignan-Cabrera, which was posted on the LiveScience blog: "Here is an idea: Send battle-hardened, strong-minded soldiers and marines on the long trips into space. We are conditioned to live with the bare minimal (of) life’s necessities and are trained to be prepared for … the worst conditions that any environment could throw at us. Hell, me and my men will go, set up a colony somewhere and await colonists to arrive."

Javier Yanes read Ruth's proposition and contacted him, sending him the link to the Universe Today article with McLane's idea.

Ruth responded by sending Yanes a written statement called "A Soldier's Perspective;," Yanes wrote an article about Ruth in Publico, and shared Ruth's proposal and pictures with me.

Ruth doesn't agree with McLane's idea of a one-person mission to Mars, but supports the one-way idea.

"I fully agree with NASA and others that it is completely dangerous and potentially deadly for anyone who sets out on this voyage," he wrote. "But since when has that ever stopped anyone? A one way trip is the way to go about this, it is a proven fact of human history that when the human species is thrown into a no alternative situation, that they will prevail and survive.

The military would never send someone out alone, and Ruth thinks a multiple ship mission is the way to proceed, with three to four smaller vessels, with four to six crew members each.

Ruth admits that other might see sending soldiers into space as more like an invasion or occupation than exploration. "To those who share this concern, consider this for a moment and ask yourself, who else?" Ruth asked. "Who else has the mentality to volunteer to face certain danger and possibly death, thousands of miles away from their homes? I could think of a few hundred thousand that do it everyday across this planet."

Ruth says that getting the worlds militaries involved with something other than making war with each other could change humanity's future for the better.

"I wonder who will be the first to extend the hand of complete partnership, representing the whole human species?" Ruth asks. "Could this be the answer that so many have searched for? Could this one thing unite humanity in a new era of global cooperation and a new planetary respect for human life, unlike we know it today? My answers… ask me again when I’ve reached the new world!"

Sure hope they bring a lot of beer.

[nmap]

I wonder what benefits would justify the human costs of such a mission?

If we were truly committed to a Mars colony, would it not be better to establish the infrastructure one step at a time? First, a viable space station, permanently manned, in Earth orbit. Next, another space station in stable orbit around Mars. Then deliver supplies, fuel, and equipment to the remote locatoin. Finally, send a manned mission to the remote station. From there, the surface could be carefully examined and studied. The final step - establishment of a permanent colony - could then proceed with controlled risk.

[Scimitar]

Unfortunitly scientists are still struggling with how to keep man in space longer then 300 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Krikalev

With current technology it takes takes over 400 days to go to and return from Mars.

Zero gravity screws with you.

[Razor]

...and just go into a "cement-mixer" type design for a few hours each day simply to work out in Earth like "gravity" to keep their muscles strong enough, anyone think this design would work?

I don't know about muscles, but I know that the "temporary gravity" solution wouldn't be enough to maintain bone density. That takes 8 - 10 hours a day of stress on the bones.

[Ret10Echo]

Imagine what sort of alternative fuel systems all those guys with the 500lb heads at NASA and other associated engineering corporations could come up with if we chose NOT to lob billion-dollar chunks of technology into the abyss...:mad: We might even disconnect the foreign oil IV-tube.

I do like the "Hillary to MARS" campaign though....maybe you could convert the Capital building into a Mars-lander???? :D

[Kyobanim]

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the federal welfare budget, at least it was not too long ago. I know which one I'd like to cut.

Read 'Mars', by Ben Bova and the follow on 'Return to Mars'. Good book based on current technology and real science. And an alternative way to pay for the mission.


http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive07/brooksoped_0730.html

OpEd: Putting NASA's Budget in Perspective

By JEFF BROOKS
posted: 10 August 2007
11:59 am ET

"I think we should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space."

This line, or some facsimile of it, probably has been heard countless times by just about every advocate of space exploration. For many people, it seems to sum up the totality of their thinking on the subject. Not a few politicians invoke it on those rare occasions when space exploration comes up in political discourse.

In October 2006, on the 49th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, CBS News anchor Katie Couric summarized this attitude when she concluded her nightly broadcast by saying: "NASA's requested budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion. There are some who argue that money would be better spent on solid ground, for medical research, social programs or in finding solutions to poverty, hunger and homelessness ... I can't help but wonder what all that money could do for people right here on planet Earth."

When space advocates hear this argument, it is difficult not to become irritated or even a little angry. When something that one cares about a great deal is treated with such disparagement, getting upset is a natural reaction. However, responding with irritation and anger does not help and, if anything, merely strengthens the other person in his or her belief that space exploration is not something that should be a national priority.

It is important for space advocates to understand that this opinion is held by people not because they are hostile to space exploration, but because they lack sufficient information about it. Thanks to the media, which generally covers space-related stories only when something goes horribly wrong, a general impression has been created that space exploration does nothing more than produce a rather small amount of scientific information, of no practical use to anybody, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Once people have settled into a comfortable belief about something, getting them to change their opinion is far from an easy task.

It is obvious to those who are knowledgeable about the potential of a robust space program that, far from diverting resources away from efforts to solve Earth's problems, the answers to many of our problems are to be found in space. However, for the purposes of this essay, I shall limit my examination to how the funding for NASA stacks up when compared to the various programs that are often cited as more deserving than the space agency.

According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58 percent of this. Compare this to NASA's allocation during the mid-1960s when, despite the pressures of the war effort in Vietnam and then U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs, NASA spending made up more than 5 percent of the federal budget.

How does NASA's budget compare with the amount of money the federal government spends on social programs? In the 2007 budget, the funding for social programs (calculated here as the budgets for the departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture and Labor) adds up to a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere 1 percent, we could very nearly double NASA's budget.

The naysayers often speak as if the country's social problems would be solved if only we took the money given to NASA and devoted it to social programs. Does anyone seriously believe that increasing spending on social programs from $1.581 trillion to $1.597 trillion would make any appreciable difference? Note also that we are only talking about federal spending here. Not included in these estimates are the vast amounts of money that state and local governments spend on social programs. Needless to say, state and local government funding of space exploration is negligible.

The idea of NASA money being diverted away from social programs is the most common proposal by those who would divert NASA's funding. But how does NASA compare to other big government expenditures? Compare, for example, the NASA budget with the U.S. defense budget.

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA's budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next 15 biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are U.S. allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

For example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber costs the U.S. taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

Then there is the matter of paying the interest on the national debt. As I write this essay, according to the U.S. Treasury office, the United States is in debt to the tune of $8,835,268,597,181.95. Merely paying the interest on this massive load of debt every year costs a fair amount of money. In 2006, the federal government had to allocate about $400 billion to this task, which adds up to more than 23.5 times the amount of NASA's 2007 allocation. As the debt is continually increasing, these interest payments will only continue to grow.

One can argue forever over the merits of government social programs, how much we should be spending on our military, or how much the government should rely on borrowed money. What one can not argue about, however, is that space exploration gets a very, very small slice of the pie. Compared to the behemoths of government spending, NASA is a pigmy. That it achieves so much with such a small share of the federal budget is astonishing.

When you look at the numbers, the notion that we should "solve our problems on Earth before we go into space" is revealed as a blatant non sequitur. Even when assuming that the solving of social or geopolitical problems was merely a matter of allocating sufficient money to those problems - a notion which is highly questionable in itself - it is clear that diverting NASA money to other programs would make little if any difference.

When it comes to funding space exploration, it is time for space advocates to stop playing defense and start playing offense. While not slackening our efforts to protect the funding of critical NASA projects, we also must begin to push for increases in funding for space exploration. We must begin to reframe and recast the entire debate in Washington on this issue, so that the politicians start thinking in terms of "how much can we spend" for space exploration, rather than "how much can we cut" from space exploration.

To conclude with a final observation, recall that NASA spending made up more than 5 percent of the federal budget during the heady days of the Apollo program. If it received 5 percent of the federal budget today, its annual funding level would be $139.2 billion. Imagine what the space agency could do if it had that level of support.

Let's make it happen.

[Team Sergeant]

Unfortunitly scientists are still struggling with how to keep man in space longer then 300 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Krikalev

With current technology it takes takes over 400 days to go to and return from Mars.

Zero gravity screws with you.


There's more than one problem to deep space travel......;)

Not many know that on our planet our magnetic field keeps us alive on a daily basis. Once you go beyond earth's magnetic field you better be sporting an anti-radiation suit.

TS



There is no "biggest danger" in setting up a permanent lunar presence or sending people to Mars, says John Charles, an enthusiastic proponent of both ideas and a NASA analyst of the costs and risks of human space flight: "There are several."

Launch, landing and re-entry are perhaps the riskiest moments of any space venture, history shows. But on long missions, what would otherwise be minor threats could become at best serious limitations or at worst deadly disasters.

Basking in the glow of President Bush's call for sending humans back to the Moon as early as 2015 and then eventually to the red planet, Charles, who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, offered up his danger list yesterday:

Lack of a medical facility could turn a mundane injury into a life-threatening situation;
"Psychosocial" pressure will be high in a small group isolated for months or years;
Zero or reduced gravity causes bone and muscle loss;
Dangerous radiation particles are abundant beyond Earth orbit.
"Radiation is a potential show stopper," Charles told SPACE.com, quickly adding that researchers are "getting on top of that" while also learning how to clear the other hurdles.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html

[abc_123]

What I find amazing amid all this recent talk of mars is that engineers, and indeed all of NASA was, during the Apollo days completely convinced that we would be on mars by the the mid 1980's... and why not? Engineers that went from designing and testing WWII airplanes to putting men on the moon in less than 25 yrs... why not Mars in anothe 20 yrs?

I watched a documentary that had an interview with one of those engineers who was working on advanced rocket motors ... and the absolute conviction of his statements ("we were on track to be on mars by the 1980's..when funding was cut and our program shut down") was impossible to fake. There was no "maybe" in his voice. Made me sad hearing him talk...thinking about where humankind would be if we would have let those men continue...

BTW if anone is interested, read the book "Flight" by Kris Craft.. about the beginnings of NASA. Very good read.

[Team Sergeant]

What I find amazing amid all this recent talk of mars is that engineers, and indeed all of NASA was, during the Apollo days completely convinced that we would be on mars by the the mid 1980's... and why not? Engineers that went from designing and testing WWII airplanes to putting men on the moon in less than 25 yrs... why not Mars in anothe 20 yrs?

I watched a documentary that had an interview with one of those engineers who was working on advanced rocket motors ... and the absolute conviction of his statements ("we were on track to be on mars by the 1980's..when funding was cut and our program shut down") was impossible to fake. There was no "maybe" in his voice. Made me sad hearing him talk...thinking about where humankind would be if we would have let those men continue...

BTW if anone is interested, read the book "Flight" by Kris Craft.. about the beginnings of NASA. Very good read.

And I also believe we would have if it hadn't been for that pesky "Cold War";)

Youzz got to have your "priorities".

I'll check out that book. Thanks.

TS

[Ret10Echo]

NASA's budget is less than 1% of the federal welfare budget, at least it was not too long ago. I know which one I'd like to cut.

Read 'Mars', by Ben Bova and the follow on 'Return to Mars'. Good book based on current technology and real science. And an alternative way to pay for the mission.

But if just that 1% could result in a cost savings for the common citizens (including those receiving that welfare budget), would that be better spent? The idea is not to close the "plant" just re-tool it.

[Kyobanim]

But if just that 1% could result in a cost savings for the common citizens (including those receiving that welfare budget), would that be better spent? The idea is not to close the "plant" just re-tool it.

No.

NASA already spends a portion of their budget on energy research. Google up nasa energy research and you'll get a lot of good information. Google other terms with nasa and energy and you'll get more.

There's too much potential spinoff technology rewards to be reaped from further space research to totally re-task their budget strictly to energy resources.

Make these other departments be more cost effective in their operation and use the savings from their new-found efficiency for alternative energy research.

Why isn't the department of energy financing any research? This is their department anyway.

[Ret10Echo]

No.

NASA already spends a portion of their budget on energy research. Google up nasa energy research and you'll get a lot of good information. Google other terms with nasa and energy and you'll get more.

There's too much potential spinoff technology rewards to be reaped from further space research to totally re-task their budget strictly to energy resources.

Make these other departments be more cost effective in their operation and use the savings from their new-found efficiency for alternative energy research.

Why isn't the department of energy financing any research? This is their department anyway.

No pol is going to commit career suicide and go after welfare dollars. They don't have the intestinal fortitude.

DOE's work is power generation and application and they look at vehicle fuels through the National Renewable Energy Lab among other places.(http://www.nrel.gov/learning/avf_advanced_vehicle_systems.html)...and the spinoff technology is exactly what we are looking for, but to meet an immediate need. Get the smart guys together to create the fix, shorten the timeline. Think of it as designing a rover-type vehicle for exploration on a planet that looks a lot like this one...:D

[Kyobanim]

No pol is going to commit career suicide and go after welfare dollars. They don't have the intestinal fortitude.


Ain't that the truth.

[tom kelly]

Three items that came from NASA Research that were transfered to the private sector were Teflon, Velcro, and Digital Imaging Processing. The companies that reaped huge benefits ( Sales Revenues ) paid little or nothing for the basic research or the technology transfer. Individuals who worked for NASA doing the research and later moved to the companies that received the technology transfer made a lot of money....Its All About The Money...Regard's, tom kelly

[Sten]

Three items that came from NASA Research that were transfered to the private sector were Teflon, Velcro, and Digital Imaging Processing. The companies that reaped huge benefits ( Sales Revenues ) paid little or nothing for the basic research or the technology transfer. Individuals who worked for NASA doing the research and later moved to the companies that received the technology transfer made a lot of money....Its All About The Money...Regard's, tom kelly

You forgot Tang.

I would sign up for the Mars mission just for the government Tang.