Poll: Would you take a one way trip to mars?

[Mojo]

Ok, so somehow I got into this discussion with my mom
and I told her that the first mission to mars will probably be a one way trip.
Its not possible to have enough fuel for going there and back. Only going there.
This means that you get to be the first person on mars but you will die there,
never to see the earth again.
My mom was wondering who would volunteer for a thing like that?
And I told her that if I had the chance I would do it right away.
This surprised her, she could not see my interest on being the firs man on mars.
She was sure that the most people would stay on earth, while I am sure that
most people would take the opportunity.
So I told her Id make a poll on the internet to see who was right.

I hope the escapist is not hungry for polls...
EDIT: DAMMIT.. where is my poll?

TL;DR:
Would you take a one way trip to mars, if you were guaranteed to be the first man on mars?
There is no way you could ever come back to earth.

 

[TimeLord]

Only if I had Wi-fi access to the Escapist on the way there...

 

[MrTwo]

Escapist is very HUNGRY!
Erm, OT probably not because I am a wuss and a lazy piece of shit. I can see the point to doing it, you would be remembered as the first man on mars, but I don't know that I'd be able to do that in the face of all the risks.

 

[Richardplex]

You think your internet connections bad now? Think of how bad it will be there. I'll pass, I take benefits over some glory that gives me nothing.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Mars? No. Being the first person there is cool and all, but it being such a (relatively) short trip, I don't really see the point in giving my life to get there. We'll get there eventually, why the hurry? Jupiter or Saturn though, that would make it more interesting for me.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I wouldn't want to go, I have stuff to live for.

Also the fuel problem is not really that massive, you don't need to use fuel during the trip there as there's no wind resistance. Mars gravity is 33% of that of Earth, much less denser atmosphere and so on. A one-way mission would also be a terrible way to start our exploration of Mars so that wont be happening.

 

[necromanzer52]

Hell no. I can't imagine why anyone would.

 

[Jedoro]

Yeah, no. I see why you would want to, but it's not for me. I'd get way too bored out there alone.

 

[Thaluikhain]

By myself? No thanks...well, unless I was on the run from more or less everyone.

If lots of other people are going other there, with the infrastructure to build big cities and start a proper society...well, I'd question where the money to send all that to Mars is coming from.

 

[RicoGrey]

Well, when you say die there, I am gonna assume you mean of old age, rather than die of oxygen/food/water running out.

Assuming there is a plan in place to create a permanent colony there, I would go as long as I could take my family, or eventually have my family moved there. If this was ten years ago, and I had not met my wife and did not have children I would go regardless, if I could take anyone with me or not.

As long as my family's and my own safety was reasonably assured(nothing can be completely assured), I would do it.

 

[Badong]

Yeah, of course I'll go to Mars! I'll be remembered as both the first person to walk on Mars, and the first person to commit suicide on another planet. Just give me some potassium cyanide and my space gear and I'll be on my way.

 

[Wyes]

I wouldn't want to go, I have stuff to live for.

Also the fuel problem is not really that massive, you don't need to use fuel during the trip there as there's no wind resistance. Mars gravity is 33% of that of Earth, much less denser atmosphere and so on. A one-way mission would also be a terrible way to start our exploration of Mars so that wont be happening.

The fuel problem is very significant; it is usually the largest limiting factor on any space mission. You're quite right that there's no wind resistance in space, but there are a lot of factors to consider, and here are two biggies;
- A considerable amount of fuel is required to break Earth's orbit; you are quite right when you say that the surface gravity of Mars is only about a third that of Earth's, but there's more to the story; Earth's escape velocity (meaning the velocity you'd need to have leaving the surface to be able to escape Earth's effective gravitational field) is about 11 km/s (about 7 mi/s, for those of you not using a metric system), and the escape velocity of Mars is about half that. That means you're still going to need at least half of the fuel it took you to leave Earth, to leave Mars.
- Acceleration is necessarily slow; the human body can only handle so much acceleration before it gets smushed, so there is a (relative to the distances involved) very low upper bound on the acceleration you can have, and this means that you need to accelerate en route, to shorten the trip as much as possible. And then, you have to decelerate again, which requires the same amount of fuel as accelerating (in fact a little bit more, because Mars will be 'pulling' you forward with less force than Earth was 'pulling' you back).

(Cool side note; did some back of the envelope calculations, but accelerating constantly at about 3g's means you could get to Mars in about 70 hours, though the amount of fuel required is probably not even worth considering. EDIT: Also completely ignoring relativistic effects)


OT: I dunno, it's a tough one. On one hand, it's be an absolutely amazing experience, and you'd get to be the first human to visit another planet, which is pretty significant. On the other hand, there's a lot of hardship on the way, a very high chance of dying, you'd probably never be able to return to Earth, and so on. To be honest I'm leaning towards no, but I think there are many, many people that would want to go.

 

[Soviet Steve]

two biggies

Ah, fair enough. I will admit I am in finance rather than science but overall I still feel it very unlikely that they would choose to initiate Mars landings by attaching the stigma of the first mission being a one-way trip unless the poor sod was already dying of inner ear inflammation or something and wanted a Mars trip as his last act.

 

[Wyes]

two biggies

Ah, fair enough. I will admit I am in finance rather than science but overall I still feel it very unlikely that they would choose to initiate Mars landings by attaching the stigma of the first mission being a one-way trip unless the poor sod was already dying of inner ear inflammation or something and wanted a Mars trip as his last act.

I think they'd make it a one-way colonisation, to be honest. It makes the most sense.

 

[Mojo]

two biggies

Ah, fair enough. I will admit I am in finance rather than science but overall I still feel it very unlikely that they would choose to initiate Mars landings by attaching the stigma of the first mission being a one-way trip unless the poor sod was already dying of inner ear inflammation or something and wanted a Mars trip as his last act.

I got the one way trip thig form this article (I think)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html
Just so you know this wasnt my crazy idea.

 

[hazabaza1]

Hells to the no. Also I don't think you need to start a new line after every pause.

 

[Thaluikhain]

- A considerable amount of fuel is required to break Earth's orbit; you are quite right when you say that the surface gravity of Mars is only about a third that of Earth's, but there's more to the story; Earth's escape velocity (meaning the velocity you'd need to have leaving the surface to be able to escape Earth's effective gravitational field) is about 11 km/s (about 7 mi/s, for those of you not using a metric system), and the escape velocity of Mars is about half that. That means you're still going to need at least half of the fuel it took you to leave Earth, to leave Mars.

Not quite, you'd not be carrying as much weight on your return voyage. On the other hand, you have to move the weight of all the fuel you are saving for the return voyage all the way out to Mars, for example.

And, that only applies to direct flight, not mucking about with partial orbits of things.

Otherwise, yeah, more or less.

 

[Gluzzbung]

Obviously not. There's something to be said about civilisation and, you know, actually being able to breathe. Then there's other people, adapting to more gravity which would cause huge spinal problems.

No, because I'd die within 8 minutes, if I had a supply of oxygen, I;d die within 5 years.