And what's the big justification for a one-way trip? Scientists argue it would cut mission costs by 80%.
From the article:
Schulze-Makuch believes many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.
He and Davies believe a Mars base would offer humanity a "lifeboat" if Earth became uninhabitable.
"We are on a vulnerable planet," Schulze-Makuch said. "Asteroid impact can threaten us, or a supernova explosion. If we want to survive as a species, we have to expand into the solar system and likely beyond."I agree with Schulze-Makuch that numerous people would volunteer to become the first human Martians. But the additional time and cost of bringing back the first human visitors to Mars may well be worth it.
While humans have been exploring space for almost five decades, space travel is still dangerous. Turning the first human trip to Mars also into the first human colony sounds like great bang-for-the-buck, but it is fraught with risk. Schulze-Makuch's suggestion may accelerate the initial timetable, it could also set the overall long-term space exploration and colonization effort back.
Reflecting its longheld "first you must go slow before you can go fast" approach, it's unsurprising that Schulze-Makuch's proposal was greeted by a lack of NASA enthusiasm.
But Schulze-Makuch's suggestion that the private sector might be interested in taking on such risks introduces all sorts of interesting property rights and legal questions. For example, will or should the first visitors to Mars be allowed to stake a claim?
No comments:
Post a Comment