Sending people to Mars...

[xrapidx]

This whole rover thing got me thinking, one day when we're ready to send a manned mission to Mars... will it be a one way trip?

[mercurial]

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthre...lement-on-Mars

[xrapidx]

Who would have thought... thanks

[mercurial]

Who would have thought... thanks

[GforceD]

well the mars is larger (thus more gravity) and has an thicker atmosphere than the moon, so after landing you would need a lot of fuel basically a second rocket for them to leave Mars' surface.

[killadoob]

would any of you go if you knew it was a one way trip?

[mercurial]

would any of you go if you knew it was a one way trip?

Hell yeah.

[Kosmik]

I'd love to, family would have some serious objections though.

[marine1]

We assume that there are not people there already

[xrapidx]

would any of you go if you knew it was a one way trip?

If I was retired 😜

[RiaX]

would any of you go if you knew it was a one way trip?

No. I wont be able to survive with slow internet

[HavocXphere]

With current tech we can't protect astronauts adequately either way tbh. Shortest possible time in space is currently ~1000 days for a Mars trip (thats return). Thats pretty much suicide. Solar flares are powerful enough to knock out entire power grids here on earth...despite us having an atmosphere & being shielded by the earth's magnetic field. In short its a sht-load of energy.

So until we find a way to prevent extra crispy astronauts we're not going to mars. Shouldn't take too long until the tech is ready though.

To answer the question: Return trip will be easier. We can maybe keep someone alive for 1000 days in space soonish...but the rest of their lives is still quite a long way off until thats possible.

There is another solution though: If you can find a way to get there dramatically faster then you can skip a lot of troubles & just accept the remaining risks. For that we'd need something like Mach 100 though...with current tech we can't get a person much higher than Mach 20 safely.

well the mars is larger (thus more gravity) and has an thicker atmosphere than the moon

The moon has no atmosphere.

so after landing you would need a lot of fuel basically a second rocket for them to leave Mars' surface.

Actually ~1/4 of a rocket will suffice (compared to earth launch).

[zippy]

The moon has no atmosphere.

.

According to NASA the moon does have an atmosphere. Insignificant, but it has one.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-...tion/?id=15724

[Crusader]

With current tech we can't protect astronauts adequately either way tbh. Shortest possible time in space is currently ~1000 days for a Mars trip (thats return). Thats pretty much suicide. Solar flares are powerful enough to knock out entire power grids here on earth...despite us having an atmosphere & being shielded by the earth's magnetic field. In short its a sht-load of energy.

Actually the tech does exists to shield astronauts, it's just very cumbersome and would be hellishly expensive to lift up in a rocket. You'd have to shield the spacecraft with a combination of lead, water and plastics. Increasing the weight of any spacecraft exponentially. This shielding would also not be 100% effective, it would just considerable reduce the radiation exposure.

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I'm not going in to space until they invent plausible artificial gravity. Being weightless for a while is probably very cool, but I'm pretty sure it gets hell annoying after a while (especially on the length of trip to Mars).