posted 10-23-2008 10:50 AM               

The distance between the Red Planet and Earth varies between 55 million (34 million miles) and more than 400 million kms (250 million miles).

Even at the most favourable planetary conjunction, this means a round trip to Mars would take around a year and a half.

"That's why you [should] send people there permanently," said Aldrin. "If we are not willing to do that, then I don't think we should just go once and have the expense of doing that and then stop."

...Aldrin said the vanguard could be joined by others, making a colony around 30 people.

"They need to go there more with the psychology of knowing that you are a pioneering settler and you don't look forward to go back home again after a couple a years," he said.

"At age 30, they are given an opportunity. If they accept, then we train them, at age 35, we send them. At age 65, who knows what advances have taken place. They can retire there, or maybe we can bring them back."

This is serious, don't be misled, but we've spoken about risk and we've spoken about old age, one of the major misconceptions about the Mars program is that you spend a lot of time getting the crew back. I will go on record as volunteering to make a one-way trip to Mars and solve half of your problem!

posted 10-23-2008 11:58 PM               

"They can retire there, or maybe we can bring them back."

posted 10-25-2008 08:39 AM               

Did the settlers of the old American West ever expect to return to the east coast once their wagon trains departed for the Oregon Trail?

No. They knew that they were going to be starting a new life in a new place. They would receive occasional news from back home in the form of newspapers or letters carried by later wagon trains (resupply missions).

The idea makes a lot of sense -- but it would take a strong advocate to convince people of the value of the effort.

If nothing else, the expedition should be sent for much longer than the time until the next launch opportunity to return. Keep the expedition on Mars for 10 years or so t really get some value from the effort.

posted 10-25-2008 09:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
They knew that they were going to be starting a new life in a new place.

---

posted 10-25-2008 10:55 AM               

If you send thirty 35 year-olds to Mars, how many of them are going to have a change of heart after a year or two (not to mention five or ten) and want to return home to Earth? All it would take is a couple of disgruntled people and you'd have a breakdown in the team dynamic...or worse. After all, you'd be asking a relatively young person to commit a good portion of their remaining life to a barren and hostile environment.

How would they deal with sickness and disease? Sure you could have a doctor or two among them, but can't have specialists in all fields of medicine. Or maybe it's your doctor who gets sick. Surely, one has to plan that not everyone will return home alive in a scenario like this.

A more important question is what would these people do for 30 years on Mars, other than set up a colony and merely survive? Presumably, they would be in a settlement in one location. While they would likely have capabilities of traveling relatively short distances from their settlement for research purposes, they would still be tied to one location that they would have to return to frequently, if not every "night." Assuming one could even find a location worthy of study for 30 years, it would still require a visit beforehand to confirm the validity of the site for extensive research. (Admittedly, that's likely a job for rovers...)

And, most importantly of all, how would we be able to mail them our autograph requests?