"Colonists may be preferred who are beyond their reproductive age"
As for the loneliness and psychological pressures of being a Martian pioneer, the two men argue that humans have often made one-way voyages that would have seemed to them every bit as isolating as one to Mars would seem to us. Indeed the colonists of old would actually have felt far more cut off from their homelands than a Martian settler/explorer able to contact Earth by radio.
It is important to realise that this is not a 'suicide mission' ... The situation these first Martian settlers are in, who would of course be volunteers, would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return.
The astronauts will have undergone psychological profiling and training before embarking on the mission, and would remain in constant contact with Earth via normal channels such as email, radio and video links. In the era of modern communications they would in fact feel more connected to home than the early Antarctic explorers (who had no systematic psychological training either). Over time, the human contingent on Mars would slowly increase with follow-up missions.
The Martian pioneer settlements would be based around underground ice-cave habitats, with hydroponic crops grown on the surface in domes to provide food and extra oxygen. Solar power would probably not be sufficient so far from the Sun, so each "cave-based biosphere" would need a small nuclear reactor. Fuel or replacement reactors would need to be shipped out from Earth, but fortunately nuclear fuels are tremendously energy-dense and this would not be a major pain like hauling rocket fuel would be.
The scientists don't think it would be a good idea for the colonists to raise children on Mars, or anyway not to start with. The radiation dose suffered on the space voyage and the absence of proper medical care on Mars would damage the astronauts' reproductive organs and reduce their life expectancy to 20 years or so. Thus "initially, colonists may be preferred who are beyond their reproductive age".
The elimination of return trips would, however, make it comparatively affordable to keep sending more people, though, and in time there might be a viable human gene pool on Mars allowing "the possibility of a successful long-term reproduction programme".
One objection foreseen by Schulze-Makuch and Davies is that humans and their imported biosphere might wipe out any native life to be found on Mars. But they say that firstly that train has already left the station as "several unsterilised, or inadequately sterilised, spacecraft have already been sent to Mars". Also, despite a lot of searching, nobody has managed to actually find any life on the red planet - and quite bluntly in any case concern over possible Martian microbes shouldn't prevent the human race acquiring its survival insurance policy.
In conclusion, the two scientists suggest that the Mars colonisation effort should begin with survey missions to identify a suitable ice cave, then unmanned flights to deliver the first base and get it mostly set up robotically before even launching any humans.
All this done, Schulze-Makuch and Davies propose that four astronauts be sent out in two two-person one-way craft, with this approach offering some redundancy and the possibility of rescue by the other ship in the event of disaster. Once there actually are people on Mars, the scientists argue, not the least of the benefits would be the fact that governments would probably feel unable to subsequently axe the programme as happened with Apollo, or even worse, give up on space altogether. Supply flights would have to continue at least until the astronauts had died.
The boffins write:
The strategy of one-way missions brings this goal within technological and financial feasibility. Nevertheless, to attain it would require not only major international cooperation, but a return to the exploration spirit and risk-taking ethos of the great period of Earth exploration, from Columbus to Amundsen, but which has nowadays being replaced with a culture of safety and political correctness.
They admit, however, that the financial and political challenges facing their plan are "monumental".
To Boldly Go is published by the Journal of Cosmology, and can be read in full here. ®
The "split infinitive rule" is nothing of the kind.
It's a myth, perpetuated by the more opinionated grammar fascists of yore who simply made some of this stuff up in order to make their petty "Laws of English Grammar" books look a little more substantial than a pamphlet. (Yes, Mr. Fowler, I'm looking at you.) It's a wholly subjective, aesthetic, judgement, nothing more.
English does have rules, but, like ending a sentence with a preposition, the splitting of infinitives isn't one of them.
No it's perfect. There's nothing there to fuck up.
Let me be the first
To bravely volunteer Simon Cowell for this mission.