Exploring Mars: If we're going to go to all the effort and expense of sending people to Mars, why bring them straight back again?, says Buzz Aldrin.
Credit: NASA/JPL
"They need to go there more with the psychology of knowing that you are a pioneering settler and you don't look forward to go back home again after a couple of years," he said.
"At age 30, they are given an opportunity. If they accept, then we train them, at age 35, we send them. At age 65, who knows what advances have taken place. They can retire there, or maybe we can bring them back."
Better decision making
Many scientists argue that sending humans to Mars is a waste of money compared with unmanned missions that deliver more science and point out the risks from psychological stress and damage to DNA from fast-moving sub-atomic particles called cosmic rays.
Aldrin, though, argued that given the time lag in communications between Earth and Mars, it made sense to have human explorers who could make decisions swiftly and on the spot. And, he said, going to Mars provided a rationale for manned flights, which were designed to "do things that are innovative, new, pioneering."
On that score, Aldrin said the U.S. space shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) were a disappointment. The shuttle "has not lived up to its expectations, neither has the space station," he said.
The United States will be without manned flight capability for around five years after the problem-plagued shuttle is withdrawn in 2010, while the ISS, still under construction, may cost as much as US$100 billion, according to some estimates.
Read all about human missions to Mars in our feature Next stop: Mars
