That's the essence of a New York Times op-ed piece by Lawrence M. Krauss, physics professor and director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. He also penned “The Physics of ‘Star Trek.’”
In a nutshell, NASA cannot afford another moon mission, let alone a foreseeable trip to Mars. Mars is especially tricky because it's far, far away -- at least for those of us stuck on 21st century Earth. Prolonged radiation exposure may kill us, but the real problem is cost. A multi-manned mission on a suitable vessel with enough rations, supplies, fuel and equipment to return home safely is simply too expensive.
Krauss proposes a solution: not to return home. He figures that sending colonists to Mars one-way would be one-tenth the cost versus roundtrip. What's more, a surprising number of industry insiders not only told Krauss that it's a good idea, but they'd even be willing to brave the voyage. Among the enthusiasts: Buzz Aldrin.
There are, of course, pitfalls with such a contersial notion. Potential loss of communications, lack of funding for future trips, all hell breaking loose on Mars given any number of scenarios. Though as Krauss explains to NPR, it's worth the gamble.
I say go for it. Unilateral ambitions aside, we still have the moon and an already aging International Space Station to contend with. Both bore the average citizen. But Mars? It's our modern day version of the New World. The explorers of yesteryear never expected to see their families ever again and presumed they'd die trying, but they mostly survived and it worked.
I think.
Comments [0]