View source for Talk:Mission with planned death

== The downfalls of a mission with planned death or no return ==

A one way mission could happen. With our limited knowlege of Mars, it would likley have to be a mission with planned death.

Such a mission could be undertaken today. However, that is its one total flaw. The more daring technologies that need to be developed for a two-way mission could lead to spinoffs that positivly affect our lives on Earth. The knowlege of ISRU and how to make propellant on Mars will be vital to a future [[Settlement]]. The one way mission with planned death does not achieve anything. All it does is get people on Mars. Just like the apollo program, is basically "flagpoles and footprints". The crew have no means to do anything meaningful, like start a colony. Maybe they do a bit of geology, but that is it. Not even a sample return capability.

With this taken into account, a manned mission does not really mean anything. 
One-way missions with planned death treat Humans as mere biological space probes. As a space probe design, humans are inferior. A much, much more productive mission could be undertaken with machines such as the MER rovers. Such machines also fly one-way.

A one-way mission with, or without planned death is no more then a publicity stunt.

Sure, a country with more radical ideals may come along with such a mission plan and land on Mars first, but this time, It isn't the one that comes first that wins. It is the one who stays. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 07:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. I would definitely not go on a mission like that. This article exists to ensure completeness of all possible manned one-way mission types. By the way, did you know that Laika went on a mission with planned death? -- [[User:Rfc|Rfc]] 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)