Human life on Mars?
- 7 Aug 2007Providing that the problems of travelling to Mars could be solved, would it be possible for man to live there? Mars does have an atmosphere, which provides some protection from solar and cosmic radiation, although it is much thinner than Earths (about 0.7% of Earths atmosphere). It seems there is water on Mars too, following recent observations by NASAs exploration robots. And a Martian day is very similar to Earths, (24 hours and 39 minutes), although a year is equivalent to about 1.88 Earth years.
However, conditions on the surface of Mars are much harsher than what we are used to on Earth. It is much colder for a start, with a mean surface temperature of -63°C, resulting in no un-frozen bodies of water. The atmospheric pressure on Mars is too low for humans to survive without pressure suits and Mars has no magnetosphere to deflect solar winds, (a stream of charged particles, i.e. a plasma, which are ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun). And the Martian atmosphere consists mainly (95%) of carbon dioxide. An unprotected human would lose consciousness in about 20 seconds and would not survive more than a minute or so on the surface of Mars.
It seems clear then, we cannot simply set up camp - so how can human life be sustained on Mars? If our astronauts are to live there, theyll require a wide range of support systems in order to create suitable conditions. They will need power, light, air, food, water and heat as a well as a place to work, rest and live that will insulate them from the cold and provide shielding from dangerous solar radiation and a transportation and communication system that can withstand very low temperature..
All this is no small task. One solution would be to establish space colonies. As with the early manned missions to the moon, the first manned missions to Mars would probably take small tentative steps, sometimes referred to as Flags and Footprints. Progression towards colonisation will be the establishment of permanent bases, which begin to create an infrastructure from which other activities can grow. One proposal for early manned missions to Mars is a live-off-the-land approach and an active effort is underway to simulate these early bases with the Mars Analogue Research Station Programme at Devon Island in Canada and in Utah, USA.
Another solution would be to alter the planets atmosphere to make it more like Earth. The process of transforming a planet, moon or other body to make it hospitable for humans is known as terraforming, (literally, "Earth-shaping"). Humans currently do not possess the technological or economic means to terraform another planet or moon, and there is some scientific debate over whether it would even be possible, or how stable its climate would be once terraformed. Terraforming even by the standards of possible technologies available in the near future, will involve timescales in the hundreds of years. There is also a philosophical debate as to whether terraforming other worlds is an ethical endeavor, as any life that does occupy Mars, for example any microscopic life not yet discovered, would be destroyed.
Mars, is it worth going?A manned mission to Mars is clearly not going to come cheap. Experts say that the costs and commitment required to get people to Mars, or even back from the moon, should not be understated. An informal estimate of the cost of the expedition is (US)1 trillion dollars, and it is expected that these costs would rise. To put this into context, the current annual budget for NASA is just (US)15 billion dollars. The additional total annual foreign aid needed to alleviate global poverty is (US)50 billion dollars, half of what this mission would cost.
So is it worth it? The money it would take to achieve this goal could be, certainly by some peoples views, better spent here on Earth. A human Mars exploration program is certainly an ambitious undertaking, filled with danger and the unknown. Every aspect of mission requirements must be investigated in fine detail before departure because there will be no quick return to, or supply from Earth in the event of the unexpected.
NASA and George Bush clearly think well get our monies worth from such an endeavour. It is safe to say that a crewed mission to Mars currently lies on the very edge of mans technical ability. The success of this mission would provide us with a better understanding of Mars as well as a better understanding of the evolution of our own planet. It would undoubtedly stand as a testament to the possibilities of human technology.
For more information
Mars images - 360 degree panoramas
http://www.panoramas.dk/mars.html
NASA - Mars exploration program
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/
European Space Agency (ESA) - Human Spaceflight and Exploration
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/




Posted by: dreammaker - 2007-08-10 - 10:24 GMT
No one has ever estimated the
cost of a manned Mars mission at anywhere close to a trillion dollars. This is simply a figure that gets
repeated over and over -- someone heard it somewhere, and put it in an article without citing sources. Once
it's in an article, it becomes a "source," and other people quote it.
The origin of this fallacy is probably the infamous "90-day report" from NASA in (I think) 1990. But there
are three facts to note here.
1. This report gave a price tag of 450 billion.
2. Far more importantly, there was MUCH more included
in that report than a simple Mars mission. It included
everything from a space station to an orbital
construction facility to a lunar base.
3. Other estimates from NASA in recent years are all
below 60 billion dollars (or 6% of a trillion).
Depending on scenarios, they range from 35-55 billion
dollars. Some sources have even estimated that a
private mission (bypassing government inefficiency)
might be done for 10 billion or less.
Bear in mind also that 50 billion dollars is less than
5% of our annual federal budget.
More importantly, bear in mind that a Mars mission
would take several years to plan and execute, and the
cost would be distributed over that time.
Manned missions to Mars can be done cheaply, using
less than one percent of the federal budget. As such, it is our duty to future generations to move outward into the cosmos.
Columbus did not solve all the problems of Europe before he sailed; neither did Magellan or Polo or any other explorer.
Lewis and Clarke did not solve all the problems of the US before they scouted the Lousisiana Territory (and yes, this was a government-financed mission).
And by the way, the reason we bought the Louisiana Territory... was for the money we would make from *the fur trade.* I doubt that the residents today, 200 years later, consider that the real value of their birthplace. What will Mars and other worlds hold for
us that we cannot yet imagine?
Hal Fulton
Vice President
MarsDrive, Inc.
Posted by: hal9000 - 2007-08-09 - 17:10 GMT
It seems that the Apollo programme had many valuable spin-offs - solar panels, light-weight construction materials, cordless electrical tools, and so on. Mars will almost certainly involve the creation of new materials and technologies. We should definitely go now!
Posted by: Ash - 2007-08-09 - 17:06 GMT


Please copy the 5 symbols from this security code image into the box below to submit comment.














