To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars
October 20, 2010

The planet Mars, like Earth, has clouds in its atmosphere, a deposit of ice at its north pole, and caves, probably with water. (NASA/JPL/Malin Space Science)
Paul Davies, a physicist and cosmologist from Arizona State University, and Dirk Schulze-Makuch, a Washington State University associate professor, argue for a one-way manned mission to Mars.
In an article, “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars,” published in Volume 12 of the Journal of Cosmology, the authors write that while technically feasible, a manned mission to Mars and back is unlikely to lift off anytime soon, largely because it is a hugely expensive proposition, both in terms of financial resources and political will.
And because the greatest portion of the expense is tied up in safely returning the crew and spacecraft to earth, they reason that a manned one-way mission would not only cut the costs by several fold, but also mark the beginning of long-term human colonization of the planet.
“One approach could be to send four astronauts initially, two on each of two space craft, each with a lander and sufficient supplies, to stake a single outpost on Mars. A one-way human mission to Mars would be the first step in establishing a permanent human presence on the planet.”
While acknowledging that the mission would necessarily be crewed by volunteers, Schulze-Makuch and Davies stress that they aren’t suggesting that astronauts simply be abandoned on the Red Planet for the sake of science. Unlike the Apollo moon missions, they propose a series of missions over time, sufficient to support long-term colonization.
“It would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return,” Davies said of the proposed one-way Martian mission. “Explorers such as Columbus, Frobisher, Scott and Amundsen, while not embarking on their voyages with the intention of staying at their destination, nevertheless took huge personal risks to explore new lands, in the knowledge that there was a significant likelihood that they would perish in the attempt.”
The authors propose the astronauts would be re-supplied on a periodic basis from Earth with basic necessities, but otherwise would be expected to become increasingly proficient at harvesting and utilizing resources available on Mars. Eventually they envision that outpost would reach self-sufficiency, and then it could serve as a hub for a greatly expanded colonization program.
The proposed project would begin with the selection of an appropriate site for the colony, preferentially associated with a cave or some other natural shelter, as well as other nearby resources, such as water, minerals and nutrients.
“Mars has natural and quite large lava caves, and some of them are located at a low elevation in close proximity to the former northern ocean, which means that they could harbor ice deposits inside similar to many ice-containing caves on Earth,” said Schulze-Makuch.“Ice caves would go a long way to solving the needs of a settlement for water and oxygen. Mars has no ozone shield and no magnetospheric shielding, and ice caves would also provide shelter from ionizing and ultraviolet radiation.”
The ultimate adventure
The article suggests that, in addition to offering humanity a “lifeboat” in the event of a mega-catastrophe on Earth, a Mars colony would provide a platform for further scientific research. Astrobiologists agree that there is a fair probability that Mars hosts, or once hosted, microbial life, perhaps deep beneath the surface and Davies and Schulze-Makuch suggest a scientific facility on Mars might therefore be a unique opportunity to study an alien life form and a second evolutionary record.
“Mars also conceals a wealth of geological and astronomical data that is almost impossible to access from Earth using robotic probes,” the authors write. “A permanent human presence on Mars would open the way to comparative planetology on a scale unimagined by any former generation… A Mars base would offer a springboard for human/robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt. And establishing a permanent multicultural and multinational human presence on another world would have major beneficial political and social implications for Earth, and serve as a strong unifying and uplifting theme for all humanity.”
Although they believe the strategy of colonizing Mars with one-way missions brings the goal of colonizing another planet technologically and financially within our reach, Schulze-Makuch and Davies acknowledge that such a project would require not only major international cooperation, but a return to the exploration spirit and risk-taking ethos of the great period of the Earth’s exploration.
They write that when they raise the idea of a one-way Mars colonization mission among their scientific colleagues, a number express an interest in making the trip. “Informal surveys conducted after lectures and conference presentations on our proposal have repeatedly shown that many people are willing to volunteer for a one-way mission, both for reasons of scientific curiosity and in a spirit of adventure and human destiny,” they write.
And yes, Schulze-Makuch offered that he too would be prepared to “boldly go” on a one-way mission to the Red Planet. But he hedges just a bit, holding out the single caveat that he would want the launch to wait until his young children have all grown into adults.
Adapted from materials provided by Washington State University.
Comments (10)
by Nawaralsaadi
This is an excellent idea, I believe the world need a unifying human experience right now; some benefits can’t be measured in dollars, this is one of them.
by DanR
This seems to fit well in times of peak oil, maybe peak economics, peak population and peak earth-based conciousness. Maybe our future depends on this. On the other hand, if the resupply mission doesn’t get there soon after, they may have to wait a very long time. Perhaps the mission should be made up of women and a sperm bank. Maybe women from Gaviotas, “a village to reinvent the world”, in Columbia South America.
by DanR
This seems to fit well in times of peak oil, maybe peak economics, peak population and peak earth-based consciousness. Maybe our future depends on this. On the other hand, if the resupply mission doesn’t get there soon after, they may have to wait a very long time. Perhaps the mission should be made up of women and a sperm bank. Maybe women from Gaviotas, “a village to reinvent the world”, in Columbia South America.
by Grismar
“he would want the launch to wait until his young children have all grown into adults.” #fail I wouldn’t mind driving a Ferrari, if it was free.
The main problem with this article to me though, is that it ignores that we won’t see a return on investment on this trip. At least not in the foreseeable future. That’s the difference with blokes like Marco Polo, Columbus, etc. Of course knowledge for knowledge’s sake is nice and I’m not denying that there might be some spin off science that will do well on Earth. But I can’t help thinking there’s cheaper ways to go about it.
How about we spend that money on developing better AI for the robots we can send without a horror show unfolding on the Red Planet, forcing families to see their love oned die horrible deaths of starvation. (in case you forgot, settling new land isn’t a picnic and it never was)
by Twixly
It’s a good idea. The motivation of a few people stuck on Mars to survive would also help come up with wonderfull ideas, don’t underestimate the human ingenious and will to survive. And to send them suplies in smaller, unmanned one-way spacecrafts should not be too expensive. Also once the persons were actually there, I think the entire world would follow them almost daily and the political landscape would surely change to support them.
by Kristoph77
Fascinating to contemplate the possibilities; it really ignites the imagination! I love the idea and I really hope this gets some serious traction within the international space community.
by eschatologist
Life is 100% fatal on Earth. To die after many years of working on a colony for humanity on Mars would be an honor.
Who wants to be safe and anonymous among 6 billion others?
Also, setting up a garden in a artificially lit room with a constant power source (nuclear) would not be too difficult. You could do that on Mars or on an asteroid or in deep space. An asteroid may be best, as you can transport valuable material back to earth.
by jeremymong
Four astronauts? Thats pretty much the worst possible number, with the exception of three (two males, one female).
With the technological aspects of starting a martian colony relatively avaiable, the main concern now is the psychological stability of the volunteers. Unless you plan on forbidding one of the genders (which obviously brings up its own psych problems), sex is something that needs to be taken into account, This is compounded by the fact the people most willing and capable of leaving Earth forever are young, single individuals with a sense of adventure. And with four people you’re pretty much creating forced partnerships, or worse drama if there is rejection (Having “Not if you were the last avaiable man on the planet!” not be an exaggeration is probably a bit of an ego-killer),
The other point is the necessity of any given person. We have to assume that in such a precarious situation, injuries are going to happen. And with only four people, the other three won’t really be capable of shifting the workload if one is incapacitated. If two people get injured, everybody dies.
I’d really have to say, 12-20 people is pretty much the minimum requirement for a one way trip to Mars.
by Editor
What would it take to create a livable environment in a cave on Mars? Some kind of stationary Bernal sphere? One idea would be to bounce sunlight down into the cave via a series of mirrors, establishing a day/night cycle (a Mars day is just over 24 hours) and providing energy for solar collectors, heating, electronics, plant cultivation, etc.
by eschatologist
Consider that plants make oxygen and we make co2. With sufficient recylcing of material, which would take a lot of energy, you could make a livable colony anywhere. You can buy a biosphere for fish…
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/182-8289420-7998519?asin=B000068ZIC&AFID=shopzilla_df&LNM=|B000068ZIC&CPNG=health%20beauty&ci_src=10043468&ci_sku=B000068ZIC&ref=tgt_adv_XSB10001
Making one for a person is much harder, but not impossible. And it needn’t be a pure self-sufficient environment. You can take materials (and people) in from the asteroids or planets of the solar system. You can make inflatable spaces, and you can extract oxygen from most rocks in the solar system.
I think space mining is the most obvious first step. Moving asteroid material into LEO would make it possible to construct spacecraft and satellites without needed to launch material. The gold and platinum metals would be useful on Earth. The idea is the same – leave the miners to keep mining, no return, but the miners could build up quite a bit of money for their grandkids. Eventually you would start bringing people back and forth, but the first goal should be to make enough profit to send more miners… it’s for the good of the human race.
Given a choice, many people would stop such profitable mining only when they died. Others would keep mining until “relieved” and someone else came to finish it. And who are we to deny people’s choices?