That's "one way" as in "not planning on bringing him back," not "no guarantee of bringing him back." According to Mr. Lane,
When we eliminate the need to launch off Mars, we remove the mission’s most daunting obstacle.Some aeroplane engineers had the same idea about landing gear, but that never proved very popular except with certain circles in the Imperial Japanese Navy.
Mr. McLane says that this approach is in keeping with the spirit of Charles Lindbergh or Captain Scott, who both took tremendous risks, but he overlooks the fact that Lindbergh was attempting to reach Paris, which had a good return liner service and was inhabited, albeit by Frenchmen, and Captain Scott and his men had no intention of taking up permanent residence at the South Pole. Even immigrants to the New World who had no plans to return home went with the tacit understanding that two-way trade was the point of the entire enterprise, not a dumping into a prison without hope of reprieve.
Counter proposals that just shooting the volunteer in the head is even more cost effective were not received gracefully.
3 comments:
I was reading and thinking of Swift's "Modest Proposal", except this astronaut isn't kidding.
Although there could be a political debate held on Mars, and when it's over and the candidates say "Let's go", they could get the news; "Go where?"
"One of these days, Alice, one of these days -- POW! Straight to Mars!"
Sheesh!
Returning from Mars isn't impossible.
Step A: Soft land years of supplies, a nuclear chemical plant and an unfueled rocket at the exploration site.
B: A nuclear powered fuel plant to make rocket fuel from CO2 and water vapor in the air.
c: Don't go until the surface to orbit vehicle has fuel.
Post a Comment