Regarding James McLane’s “One-Way Ticket to Mars” (January/February 2009): The article was well-presented and clear and answered lots of the questions being posed. The cost and complexity of a mission that must return humans from Mars—as opposed to leaving them there to start a colony—is probably increased by an order of magnitude. I think you might compare these issues with data from the Apollo program. People don’t realize what the lift-off / spacecraft return weight of the system would be. Knowing this would give an idea of what it would take to bring crews back and some idea of the relative complexity and cost of a one-way mission vs. crew-return mission.
On the other hand, I’m not enamored with the idea of sending people on extraterrestrial missions at all. “If God had wanted something to live there, he would have put it there,” so to speak. We aren’t well-suited to live on a planet where there isn’t 21 percent oxygen and which isn’t free of other toxic environments. It’s not like discovering a new island in the Pacific, you know! No one is going to run around sunning on the beaches or skiing or flying planes or playing football.
And who wants to live without those things? So why would we want to perpetuate life by going to Mars? What good reason do we have for sending humans there anyway? I’m perfectly happy having one-way trips for robots that can tell us what life on Mars was/would be like.
I am more enamored with the idea of keeping comets and asteroids from striking the Earth and making human life impossible, a la the KT impact 65 million years ago, the comet or asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and most other forms of life on Earth. McLane should address that, because he has a better chance of convincing folks it is important, for obvious reasons. The chances are something like one in a thousand we will be hit by an asteroid in 2029 or 2035.
Ross Roepke
Tullahoma, Tennessee
The one difference that I can see in the article (“One-Way Ticket to Mars,” January/February 2009) that differs from current plans to go to Mars is that McLane suggests that we not worry about the technical challenges in returning an astronaut back to Earth. In my opinion, this idea neglects to consider that if we develop all of the technologies needed to deliver the astronaut there in the first place, the extra effort to launch that person back into Mars orbit and return him or her to Earth is not great at all. It would be much better to develop the technology and systems to allow more people to travel to and from Mars. Not just a few. If we can deliver one person there, we can deliver many. To and from.
It is arguable whether or not we currently have the technology to send a person to Mars and sustain that person indefinitely—certainly not without reliable resupply. Certainly no other country does at this time, either. We do have some of the individual capabilities. But it’s not all about technology. It’s about money, too.
Let’s consider the technology, anyhow. We have not yet been able to maintain a closed biological system (the Biosphere project, for instance, was a failure). We are using the space station to test and develop related recycling technologies. But we have not yet demonstrated the ability to reliably gather oxygen from the soil or air, or grow food, or extract water, etc. All these are necessary for maintaining life. In fact, all of these technologies are arguably far more complicated than flying a spacecraft off the surface of another celestial body, which—by the way—we have done successfully several times previously.
I also completely and absolutely disagree with McLane’s assessment about risk and rewards. Once commercial space industries are able to make space travel accessible to the masses, the perceived and/or real risks will not be able to keep people from taking advantage of that and traveling wherever they are able to go. It’s incredible to me the kinds of risks people take nowadays. There are all sorts of variations on skydiving.
It’s not that America isn’t up to the challenge. It’s that America doesn’t want to take the “gimmick” approach this time. I know McLane and others want to see a human mission to Mars soon. However, we have to build up a sustainable program, addressing prerequisites first and leveraging free enterprise wherever possible. This allows NASA to focus on the frontier aspects of any movement into space. We want to go into space to stay this time.
No offense is meant, but I disagree with much in the article. I do hope we maintain a steady, outward movement and explore the solar system personally.
Jon Brendt
League City, Texas
James McLane would have us believe that a “One-Way Ticket to Mars” (January/February 2009) will cause “America to regain the respect and admiration of the world.” The argument against this folly actually is in his next sentence: “This program would achieve that [respect and admiration] far better than a thousand ships sailing away loaded with our surplus grain ...”
Does the author really believe that America will be more admired for sending a person to Mars to die rather than for sending food to millions of impoverished humans to live? This is a no-brainer.
Jeffrey P. Schaffer
Napa, California
Given the opportunity to achieve the impossible, a sure place in history, and the possibility of solving some of the most outstanding questions in science, would you go alone to Mars if you couldn’t come back? Would you be willing to forgo the comforts of life on the Earth for the chance to leave your mark on history forever?
It’s a compelling question, and as I read this excellent article (“One-Way Ticket to Mars,” January/February 2009), it’s the very question I was asking myself. I don’t know my answer. But I do know this, as author James McLane says, the person who undertook a one-way journey to Mars would surpass fame, would surpass even history. They would become legend.
McLane makes an excellent case for a one-way mission to Mars. It is technologically far more feasible than a round trip. Great science could be done, and resupply from Earth would allow the mission to potentially last a long time. You could still communicate with Earth, so despite the solitude, you could hear and see loved ones and friends left behind. And public interest in space would skyrocket. The Mission to Mars would be the topic of every discussion. Families would gather around the television to watch the latest report from the daring Martian(s), and, I suspect, there would be thousands of volunteers for the next mission.
Whether any agency would be willing to make such a bold move, I don’t know. I think it’s doubtful. But it is excellent food for thought, and McLane’s article is well worth reading.
Comment from martianchronicles.wordpress.com
How might science and religion be reconciled? For those who can let go of their religious preconceptions I believe that there is hope that the present chasm may be bridged by extending one of the trajectories that quantum physics is now taking.
Many physicists have embraced an impersonal, divine “First Cause” and have rejected the “personal God” of the Bible. Does this model not provide a frame of reference where both concepts may be understood?
Could it be that the probability density of our contingent futures are defined at our conception by what we call “souls” and that the potentialities of our souls are actualized through the intermediary we call “spirit” by the agency we call “mind”? If so, soul and spirit could be understood to constitute the essential and eternal human reality that is merely connected with what we call “body.”
This model seems consistent with religious texts I have assembled and scientific models I have investigated. Is this model correct? Even though the process of falsification can never be complete, I feel encouraged to continue.
Jon E. Trevathan
Vienna, Virginia
Regarding the story “Mystics Under the Microscope” (January/February 2009): For what it’s worth, this is pretty much in accord with my own experiences. Psilocybin was my favorite hallucinogen, and I took it usually in its natural form: mushrooms. (Just for the record, I experimented with these sorts of things for about twenty years, from about 1969 to 1989; in 1989 I went straight for good.)
I liked ‘shrooms the best because the high seemed more natural (there was always something inorganic about the LSD experience), and there is no doubt that set and setting are crucial, and that one tends to interpret—or even have—the experience in terms of the religious tradition one is most familiar with. I certainly have come to think that all the great religions are takes on the same transcendent dimension of being (if I can put it so) from different angles of approach.
Comment from booksinq.blogspot.com
Regarding the story “Mystics Under the Microscope” (January/February 2009): I’ve always maintained, since studying comparative religion in my teens and twenties, that at the heart of every institutionalized religion is a similar mystical experience. The differences between the religions, as they grow up, are local and regional, based on the filters of local culture through which the mystical experience is perceived and interpreted. Religion grows out of the mystical experience, although it is also renewed by later mystical experiences.
This is supported by reading all the mystics from every worldwide tradition. My insight, which I do not claim is original, was the product of a search, begun when I was thirteen, for what I termed the original religion: whatever it was that lay, ancient, behind all the religions the world currently knows.
The article does note that the researchers’ findings might have been colored by using people all of the same religious tradition. That’s a valid point. But the experience is still universal.
Comment from booksinq.blogspot.com
