Human costs are too high

Nasa is contemplating a space mission to send astronauts to colonise Mars. The US space agency is within its rights to do so. But the Hundred Years Starship programme comes with a dangerous stipulation. We're talking a one-way mission. The astronauts sent to the red planet would never come back, as the return journey would be too expensive. They would instead establish a colony in Mars, somewhat like early settlers did in North America.As usual, the idea seems to have gained instant currency among space enthusiasts who haven't considered the implications.
Any comparison between the Mars mission and historic sea voyages of the past is unwarranted. Can we compare the nature of the risks in space with that anywhere on Earth? Seafarers and early European settlers had a rough idea about the dangers involved in going to a distant land. So, they were better prepared to cope in adverse situations. Most important, they were on home ground, not in some planet hostile to life like Mars, which remains an enigma for humans. Not knowing whether survival is indeed possible on the Martian landscape, we cannot sacrifice precious human lives at the altar of scientific enterprise. The Mars mission should only be taken up if it includes a project for the astronauts' return. If there are funds to send them to Mars in the first place, why turn stingy about bringing them back should the need arise? It's time we drew a line delineating the limits of science, weighed against the importance of human life.
Equally faulty is the logic that Mars must become a colony for future generations because the Earth can't eventually bear population pressures. This is to evade a fundamental question: why are earthly resources depleting? Let's better manage precious resources here on Earth. If human greed knows no limits, even a whole galaxy won't suffice.
VIEW: Creating new horizons