Thomas, you have no idea what I’ve read or not. I’ve read about toxic martian soil long ago. I’ve read about the problems Apollo had. I’ve actually worked in such environments. I understand the risks. Do you?
Where were you when cars were spewing lead into the atmosphere? Are you still alive? Why is that? Because toxicity is not a binary attribute. Your body at this very moment is hard at work isolating toxins and preparing to expel them.
Let me repeat… mars can kill ya. It can be deal with.
You are demonstrating your own ignorance, not mine. Please, don’t talk down to me.
Just so you know Thomas, my understanding is the situation is even worse than you’ve described. It’s not just a matter of toxic dust. In Zubrin’s 1st edition of a case for mars he describes trenching and native bricks to produce habitats. That alone will not work because the martian soil will outgas toxic gases. Which means habitats will all require that the interiors be sealed from those gases. It’s important that we research all these issues before we commit researchers to the surface of mars. But this is a far cry from running around waving our hands in the air and screaming, “We’re all gonna die!”
Properly dealt with, martians will be in less danger than passengers out for a sunday drive.
Ken,
The Earth examples you provide are orders of magnitude less hazardous then the environment on Mars. The dust there is not like Earth dust which is rounded by erosion. On Mars its as sharp as glass and slices anything soft allowing the toxins to get into the blood stream and gaskets on your spacesuits to leak. The radiation levels are far higher then on the ISS.
The key is that the more we learn about Mars, the less suitable it looks. Its only real advantage was having water, and now that significant amounts of water have been found on the Moon, more then enough for a first generation settlement, that advantage is gone.
The Martian atmosphere is not an advantage, its just thick enough to be a major problem creating friction issues for landers while requiring huge parachutes to reach the surface, too large for any system delivering humans to the planet. The high gravity creates fuel issues for landers that want to use jets for landing, while the high winds creates guidance and stability issues. You do know both Mars rovers were also lost due to high winds during their decent to the surface? They were right on the margin. And then their is the 20 minute time delay to Earth making telebotic support difficult at best. You do know it took years for the Mars rovers to cover the same ground the Soviet Moon rovers covered in weeks using 1970’s software and technology?
Again, Mars will be tamed someday, but not until the technology required is first developed on the Moon. Mars Direct is a dead end proposal, one that will contribute no more to opening the Solar System then the Viking expeditions did to opening up the New World to Europe.
A lot of the posts here are citing junk (or dated) science about Mars.
We don’t have enough data yet on Mars … so keep down the fear mongering that attempts to gen up concerns into certainties. If you need to be concerned about something, or pick a fight with Zubrin, I suggest you deal with him on issues of radiation and zero-g in the hab on Earth-Mars transit.
At least you could work with real data (some soon to be released too!) that quantifies real concerns.
As far as habitability goes, throughly investigating places like the Hellas Basin is what you want to focus on – the atmospheric pressure is greatest there (0.01 atmosphere). We haven’t got to a lot of interesting places on Mars with potentially very different surface chemistry. The few places we have been have each brought dramatic surprises.
Cut to the chase – the first planet most like Earth in the known next thousand cubic light years is Mars. If people want to play word games to make Mars seem like a more distant, hostile, …, costly Moon … for idiot-logical gain – that is their fantasy.
Mars is likely to be proven to have had an ecosystem within this decade. Possible even “has”.
Deal with it.
The Earth examples you provide are orders of magnitude less hazardous then the environment on Mars.
Unprepared, either will kill ya.
The dust there is not like Earth dust which is rounded by erosion.
Less erosion perhaps.
On Mars its as sharp as glass and slices anything soft
You stay inside during a dust storm. There will be plenty to do inside. Marines put rubbers over their gun barrels. Not everybody is as smart as a marine.
The radiation levels are far higher then on the ISS.
The radiation level on the surface of the earth are far higher than the living quarters on a nuclear sub. So? You deal with it.
The key is that the more we learn about Mars, the less suitable it looks.
Which is comforting since that’s exactly what you would expect. I’d rather that than have a false belief in safety. You can mitigate something you understand.
Its only real advantage was having water
Uh, no.
The Martian atmosphere is not an advantage
Uh, yes.
Landers don’t need parachutes which bring their own problems (which you mentioned.) What they do need is a high enough delta V. With powered descent the highest martian winds will have no effect.
the 20 minute time delay to Earth making telebotic support difficult
There will be no delay at all. Earth will not be running the robots. They will get the data the martians discover. I suggest we supply them with as many rovers as they can operate.
Again, Mars will be tamed someday, but not until the technology required is first developed on the Moon.
Only if it’s designed for mars and not just the moon.
Mars Direct is a dead end proposal
Even Zubrin has pretty much abandoned it. But what it did do is get us thinking in the right direction.
one that will contribute [little] to opening the Solar System
But it already has contributed and nothing can take that away from him.
If life is found on Mars you may as well forget settling there. The environment protection part of the OST will go into effect and any humans that go to the surface will only do so under strict protocols to protect further contamination of the planet.
Ken,
And what did it contribute beyond speculation on a dead end idea?
As a side note, the idea that the future of humanity will be on Earth like planets is also a legacy of 20 Century science fiction. We now know that for most of it’s history the Earth would have not been suitable human habitation. Indeed, as recently as 700 million years ago it was a giant snowball. That is why the odds of finding another Earth are probably as long as your average lottery ticket. That is why humanity’s future in space will be in the form of Asimov Habitats and the value of the Moon will be it’s role in creating the first Asimov Habitats. Mars is a great goal for science but its way off the path to creating a space faring society.
We now know that for most of it’s history the Earth would have not been suitable human habitation. Indeed, as recently as 700 million years ago it was a giant snowball. That is why the odds of finding another Earth are probably as long as your average lottery ticket.
No. The Kepler probe suggest billions of potential Earth like planets. Good odds for lottery tickets.
Its a dumb argument anyways. We already can bend harsh environments to our will, Mars is very much within reach. That’s what “exceptionalism” really means on a solar system scale.
Perhaps we’re not yet ready to make such decisions? Retreat back into caves? Hide under rocks?
That dead idea made thinking about mars reasonable after the 90 day report had pretty much killed the idea. The fact that the mission architecture needs further refinements doesn’t change that.
environment protection
This becomes your argument after toxicity???
Ken, life on Mars, present or past, probably would throw a major delay in any plans. The scientific community would of course desperately want lots of samples, but they would definitely not want to run the risk of contaminating those samples (or that environment) with any bacteria that humans carry, and we carry pretty much everything. I would expect a ten to twenty year delay while they argue for robotic sample/return missions. It might even stretch to thirty years if they find signs of past life but nothing current, since the life must still be there, hidden away, as long as we don’t make the task ten times harder by introducing organisms from Earth that will cause false positives, if not slowly take over. And of course there’s the possiblity that there’s been ancient cross-contamination would could be confused with newly introduced bacteria.
It doesn’t take much to get naysayers and environmentalists fired up, and on projects this expensive, politicians are all looking for an excuse to delay, cut funding, or entirely abandon it.
So if hard evidence of life is found, it will have a ripple effect through the whole Mars community, providing reasons for both increased impetus and massive caution.
All the more reason to get people on the surface ASAP. If we find anything alive, it won’t be traces. It might get contaminated, but so what? That contamination isn’t going to be spread immediately to the whole planet. It would mean sending more people to do better research. This isn’t something you can reasonably do entirely with robots. Once people are on the surface, they aren’t going to be pulled off once life is found. Any contamination damage is already done.
They’ll run the DNA on it and everybody will be happy. Those that aren’t can go cry and whine to their hearts content. If results are inconclusive they send more researchers.
That’s probably true, but finding life on Mars will mostly motivate the NIH science geeks. General colonization won’t start until we discover nightlife on Mars.
Still, I think Venus is probably a much easier place to build. It’s got lots of oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen in its atmosphere, which 50 km up is almost Earth normal, yet a nitrogen oxygen atmosphere would provide almost the same buoyancy as helium does on Earth. Near the surface, a craft the size of the new Goodyear blimps, which here only have a 2 ton useful lift capacity, there would lift 250 tons. That makes major mining and ore transport a trivial exercise. Heck, it’s so dense that a spent Shuttle external tank wouldn’t even hit the surface. It would just float due to the residual hydrogen and oxygen gas (if enough was left in the tank).
And unlike Mars, trash disposal would never be a problem because the floating cities would just toss it over the side.
nooneofconsequence
There may be billions of planets in the habitable zone, but I will be surprise if one in a 1000 are as habitable as Earth.
But I predict that by the time we reach the stars it’s the idea of living on a planetary surface will be viewed as a throwback to the attitude of caveman days. By then the idea of terra forming a planet and destroying its native ecosystem just so folks could live on its surface will be viewed something from humanity’s savage past. For one thing there is a rapidly developing ethos developing about respecting existing ecosystems. Just look at the protocols being developed for planetary protection.
For another there is the thread throughout human history of increasing mastery of humanity’s environment and decreasing the impact of nature on it. Just compare a modern city to a village of even a few hundred years ago, let alone one in the Neolithic Era. Increasingly humans have used technology to isolate themselves from the randomness of nature. Asimov Habitats take this to a new level by elimination of weather and geological hazards in addition to eliminating variation in food supplies and other hazards of nature. Why would humans born and raised in such habitats want to turn the clock back to live like “savages” on a planetary surface? Oh, there will be the back to nature types, just as there are those that go “wild” in the Alaska wilderness. But they will only make up a small percentage of any space faring population, far too small to justify terra forming a planet even if there is no indigenous ecosystem to prevent it.
No the idea of terra forming and settling a planet will seem as outdated as the idea of damming the Mediterranean and rebuilding Africa that was proposed by the Germans in the 1930’s. Google Atlantropa to see what they planned to do.
Ken,
Sorry, but they already beat you to it. Missions to Mars must meet Category IV standards under NASA Planetary Protection Protocols. And although NASA does not issue launch licenses its standards are taken into account when the FAA does. Just ask anyone who actually pursed and received a license for a lunar mission.
So basically Mars is already effectively off limits for humans, especially for those intending to settle there. Until the question of life of Mars is settled and its proven beyond doubt that none exist its unlikely any humans to travel to the surface except for short carefully managed stays. That is why the focus in the planning community is on missions to the Martian moons, to use them a bases to learn more about the possibility of life so we don’t contaminate any results.
So Dr. Zubrin’s schemes are truly out of date and out of touch with the 21st Century. Its also why the focus for commercial ventures is on the Moon which is only a Category II destination.
George,
I like the idea of floating cities on Venus, or at the very least a floating mining settlement.
BTW, if any one is interested in the issue of sending humans to Mars and the problem of planetary protection, here is a good paper on one solution to it.
The practical concern at the moment over cross contamination is that of understanding if an ecosystem genuinely exists on Mars. For the very first attacks to its findings will be that it is just life from Earth that hijacked a ride, like the bacteria in the Surveyor 3 camera recovered by the Apollo 12 crew.
Partly the motivation for Mars Sample Return (many different samples) is to provide a broad range of evidence with appropriate provenance/controls as well as the ability to subject samples after the fact to novel tests of potential after the fact challenges.
This may be complicated by the preexisting potential that Mars and Earth have exchanged materials over a millennium – there might be shared biological heritage that looks a lot like contamination.
Past the politics of agreeing that a planet with an active ecosystem had indeed be found … would come an enormous debate over what it meant.
Guessing anything more than that would be presuming too much.
Nooneofconsequence,
Actually new research shows that the Surveyor 3 bacteria probably never left Earth.
[[[ As it turns out, there’s a dirty little secret that has come to light about clean room etiquette at the time the Surveyor 3 camera was scrutinized.
“The claim that a microbe survived 2.5 years on the moon was flimsy, at best, even by the standards of the time,” said John Rummel, chairman of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Panel on Planetary Protection. “The claim never passed peer review, yet has persisted in the press — and on the Internet — ever since.]]]
Which isn’t a surprise as I remember discussing with Dr. Mike Duke the reports of water in lunar samples and he indicated the risk of contamination because of the sample handling procedures was significant enough to make such claims very difficult to prove. Remember, 40 years ago we understood a lot less about handling material to prevent contamination of samples.
True, no exact predictions are possible if life is found on Mars, but given the increased sensitivity to protecting natural ecosystems on Earth, combined with the lack of any economic case for Mars settlement, makes the likelihood that Mars would be off limits for settlement until the question of Mars life is settled beyond doubt quite likely, which in regards to negative findings will probably take several decades.
So in regards to the 21st Century space settlement it will be the Moon, Asimov Habitats and Asteroids, not Mars. And by the 22nd Century settlement of Mars will be considered as outdated as Vilhjalmur Stefansson arguments for Arctic settlement. Indeed, to bring this discussion full circle, Vilhjalmur Stefansson reminds me of Dr. Zubrin in his zealous views of the future direction of human settlement.
Thomas Matula,
Yes, I’ve heard that. Also been present for many tedious investigations into scientific rectitude of all kinds. It is an enormous “hall of mirrors”, where much of the time you cannot be certain of the provenance of a claim (or to be able to conclusively eliminate such as well).
Which is why I used the term cross contamination. The possibility that multiple sources of contaminates might be exchanged from either direction.
What is more important yet unmeasurable is what happens when the public twigs to another planet with an active ecosystem. Do not underestimate the impact this may have, nor how idiosyncratic the onset / dwell time may be.
This is far more important than our protocols regarding ecosystem protection or economic yield. It is more about the nature and/or perceptions of the people of America – you cannot guess either how they will jump, or what this might cause them to do.
I watched a very powerful Senator speak with a constituent about this … more than a few times … and we were both surprised by the results. Theres the potential for a very strong reaction present that is very intriguing to politicians.
That is why one can’t presume much beyond this point.
As to orbital habitats, there is no such reaction present. The public sees no difference, no excitement with regard to space stations of any sort – kind of like a cosmic camping expedition. They are in no way comparable politically. This is part of the frustration of getting any political advantage out of any space station.
Ironically, all space stations in all countries/cultures appear to be similarly afflicted. The best part of the ISS is the sharing of cost. The worst part of the ISS is that international participation jacks up costs by more than 5x (because its handled so poorly).
nooneofconsequence
OK, you are referring government space and going to Mars.
I am focused on private space as I see little role for government in space settlement.
In terms of government policy, an extension of the Seabed Mining Act to space would be nice, but not necessary. A legal framework allowing space settlements to incorporate in a format similar to cities do under state law would also be nice, but again, is not necessary. Current space law is adequate for access to resources for space settlements as is current corporation law. Common law precedents already set show that there are no legal show stoppers to creating a lunar settlement or an Asimov Habitat under United States law. And there are places like the Isle of Man that are open to creating any laws needed.
I see NASA has having an even more limited role in space settlement. The only role I see is in tech transfer, but that is already available via NASA Act Agreements already being used by Bigelow and groups like the International Lunar Research Park. There is no need to push NASA to do more for the simple reason NASA has neither the organizational culture, structure or focus to take a lead role in space settlement. Its just not a good match and its sad to see all the efforts organizations like NSS and SFF have wasted with their focus on NASA.
No, space settlements is not nor should not be a government space goal, nor a function of government. The road to success will be a private one built on identifying and creating a scalable and practical business model. And public opinions will have zero impact on that model, no more then then public opinion has on a firm deciding to build a new comsat.
In regards to your belief that somehow finding life on Mars will create a public outcry to send humans there, good luck.
Given that nearly 80 percent of the public believes UFOs are visiting the Earth, and a majority believe the government is hiding information about them the discovery of some microbes on Mars will excite no one but the science community. The rest of the public will simply yawn and say, so what? The only ones likely to spurred into doing anything will be the environmentalists who will push to extend their environmental ethos to Mars and start pushing to turn the planet into a scientific preserve as has been the case with Antarctica. Given the size of the environmentalists community, their connections and political savvy it will be a slam dunk, so say good bye to any of Dr. Zubrin’s Mars schemes.
But quite honesty I do care one way or another, for just as NASA is not on the critical path to space settlement, neither is Mars.
Thomas Matula,
OK, you are referring government space and going to Mars.
Nope.
In regards to your belief that somehow finding life on Mars will create a public outcry to send humans there, good luck.
Nope. Not that arrogant.
Just an observer of human nature.
Its fascinating – hanging around really potent politicians, the best ones seem to find the nerve endings of the public. True of the best in business too. Yes, in general the public is a bunch of nuts … even though … they are the people of America nonetheless.
My point is about visceral issues. This one hits hard. And has unpredictable results.
Certain savvy politicians have openly asked why the public often doesn’t relate to grand space undertakings as they’d expect. The reason appears to be the perception of “permanent” and “temporary”.
“Permanent” means like earth – you can grow food from the land, shelter from the elements, and extract resources from surroundings/ground. “Temporary” means anything else. You cannot “sell” them their perceptions either – this one’s highly resistant to manipulation. Too fundamental.
Seems to hold true across a broad swath of cultures/economic/education. From the poorest to billionaires.
They see artificial environments quite differently. Irrespective of space or earth based. This has ramifications for the viability of such projects. And private funding for such, who have closely examined this behavior.
Honestly, don’t know what it means. But I’d like to. Just that it catches the eye of some of the most powerful people in the world. So perhaps its something to be mindful of, unless one wishes to be ignorant in view of them.
nooneofconsequence
If you discover something on Mars beyond microbes you may get the public’s interests, but they are just not going to get excited about bacteria.
I am more then a mere observer, I actually research how public attitudes are formed about different issues. My day job is teaching students how to replace opinions on human behavior with hard data and models. My Dissertation successfully developed an attitude model to predict public support for Commercial Spaceports and I have actually done surveys on public attitudes towards space policy.
Based on my research the search for life always ranks at the bottom in terms of what the public wants for a space goal, while Planetary Protection and Space Solar Power dominate. Traditional space advocate goals like space settlement, Mars, the Moon are all in the single digits, really in the range of sample error. And I will take a good survey, hard data, over opinion any day.
[[[Certain savvy politicians have openly asked why the public often doesn’t relate to grand space undertakings as they’d expect. The reason appears to be the perception of “permanent” and “temporary”.]]]
Which is an interesting theory you should research, especially beyond the very small community of space advocates. But the answer is far more simple. Cost/benefit.
The average individual is able to visualize the potential direct benefits from planetary protection or clean energy from space and so they are willing to support both with their tax dollars. By contrast they don’t see any benefits from finding life on Mars or creating a settlement there. Might make for some interesting TV shows, and some interesting websites for their kids, but nothing they see as worth the cost of their tax dollars. Which is why most support NASA for the same reason they did in the 1960’s, as a symbol of national power and prestige. But the end of the Shuttle will likely take that feeling with it and that is why I expect support among the general public for NASA will decline despite the hand waving of space advocates it’s a step forward.
[[[They see artificial environments quite differently. Irrespective of space or earth based. This has ramifications for the viability of such projects.]]]]
Again, I don’t care about the public sentiment on space settlements, because that has nothing to do with their economic viability. Indeed, it might even impact I negatively as it creates the wrong impression of them. Just look at the case of the O’Neill Habitats with their misleading image of what a space settlement would look like and the false path it led many advocates on to push CATS instead of letting demand pull it. And even more important, as the early history of colonization of the New World illustrates, such public sentiments end up providing you with the wrong type of settlers. Nearly all of the first wave colonies failed or came close to failure because the colonists were from the noble class and more interested in getting rich quick from gold and silver then doing the hard work of growing food and building infrastructure.
In many ways this also illustrates the problem with space tourism and New Space which is driven more by the desire to fly into space then by sustainable space settlement.
And for space settlements to be viable they must be especially sustainable economically, and that means they must provide economic value to the human econsystem. In short they must pay their way along each step. That is why a business model that is scalable is so important. And why you want hard core business professionals crafting the business model, not starry eye dreamers. Mr. Bigelow is a good example of this approach with his inflatable habitats designed for specific market needs. No, they are not space settlements, but they are on the right path to the technology that will be needed. Now if New Space is only able to disengage itself from its fixation with NASA and provide him with his transportation system….
The same goes for the ILRP which is focusing on the creating the technology for the robots that will lead the way to lunar settlement. Neither is much in the public eye, nor needs to be. But both are moving towards the goal the creation of space settlements one step sustainable step at a time.
Really the path to lunar settlement is clear. First robots to explore the Moon and determine its economic potential. Then more robots to start the process of exploiting the Moon’s economic resources. The ILRP is an enabler for both of these stages. Then the next logical step will be humans going to the surface to support the robots and increase their efficiency. This is where the Bigelow habitats will fit in, giving them a place to live. Then you get an upward spiral going of more economic output increasing the demand for more human settlers. At some point the settlement(s) reach a point where they individuals going there do so to live and rise their family, not just to earn money. Its not magic or visionary, just plain simple hard work. But then that was the case with all the successful colonies in the New World.
By contrast there is no such economic path for Mars settlement. Its too far to allow the control needed for robots to prepare the way which is also the same problem with NEOs. Mars has little of economic value to Earth, which is why the economic development of Mars is just not viable especially with the added restrictions, and expense, of category IV planetary protection requirements. Dr. Zubrin’s arguments for Mars are far more utopian then economic, the same failing that doomed Dr. O’Neill’s space settlements to fantasy.
Thomas, you have no idea what I’ve read or not. I’ve read about toxic martian soil long ago. I’ve read about the problems Apollo had. I’ve actually worked in such environments. I understand the risks. Do you?
Where were you when cars were spewing lead into the atmosphere? Are you still alive? Why is that? Because toxicity is not a binary attribute. Your body at this very moment is hard at work isolating toxins and preparing to expel them.
Let me repeat… mars can kill ya. It can be deal with.
You are demonstrating your own ignorance, not mine. Please, don’t talk down to me.
Just so you know Thomas, my understanding is the situation is even worse than you’ve described. It’s not just a matter of toxic dust. In Zubrin’s 1st edition of a case for mars he describes trenching and native bricks to produce habitats. That alone will not work because the martian soil will outgas toxic gases. Which means habitats will all require that the interiors be sealed from those gases. It’s important that we research all these issues before we commit researchers to the surface of mars. But this is a far cry from running around waving our hands in the air and screaming, “We’re all gonna die!”
Properly dealt with, martians will be in less danger than passengers out for a sunday drive.
Ken,
The Earth examples you provide are orders of magnitude less hazardous then the environment on Mars. The dust there is not like Earth dust which is rounded by erosion. On Mars its as sharp as glass and slices anything soft allowing the toxins to get into the blood stream and gaskets on your spacesuits to leak. The radiation levels are far higher then on the ISS.
The key is that the more we learn about Mars, the less suitable it looks. Its only real advantage was having water, and now that significant amounts of water have been found on the Moon, more then enough for a first generation settlement, that advantage is gone.
The Martian atmosphere is not an advantage, its just thick enough to be a major problem creating friction issues for landers while requiring huge parachutes to reach the surface, too large for any system delivering humans to the planet. The high gravity creates fuel issues for landers that want to use jets for landing, while the high winds creates guidance and stability issues. You do know both Mars rovers were also lost due to high winds during their decent to the surface? They were right on the margin. And then their is the 20 minute time delay to Earth making telebotic support difficult at best. You do know it took years for the Mars rovers to cover the same ground the Soviet Moon rovers covered in weeks using 1970’s software and technology?
Again, Mars will be tamed someday, but not until the technology required is first developed on the Moon. Mars Direct is a dead end proposal, one that will contribute no more to opening the Solar System then the Viking expeditions did to opening up the New World to Europe.
A lot of the posts here are citing junk (or dated) science about Mars.
We don’t have enough data yet on Mars … so keep down the fear mongering that attempts to gen up concerns into certainties. If you need to be concerned about something, or pick a fight with Zubrin, I suggest you deal with him on issues of radiation and zero-g in the hab on Earth-Mars transit.
At least you could work with real data (some soon to be released too!) that quantifies real concerns.
As far as habitability goes, throughly investigating places like the Hellas Basin is what you want to focus on – the atmospheric pressure is greatest there (0.01 atmosphere). We haven’t got to a lot of interesting places on Mars with potentially very different surface chemistry. The few places we have been have each brought dramatic surprises.
Cut to the chase – the first planet most like Earth in the known next thousand cubic light years is Mars. If people want to play word games to make Mars seem like a more distant, hostile, …, costly Moon … for idiot-logical gain – that is their fantasy.
Mars is likely to be proven to have had an ecosystem within this decade. Possible even “has”.
Deal with it.
The Earth examples you provide are orders of magnitude less hazardous then the environment on Mars.
Unprepared, either will kill ya.
The dust there is not like Earth dust which is rounded by erosion.
Less erosion perhaps.
On Mars its as sharp as glass and slices anything soft
You stay inside during a dust storm. There will be plenty to do inside. Marines put rubbers over their gun barrels. Not everybody is as smart as a marine.
The radiation levels are far higher then on the ISS.
The radiation level on the surface of the earth are far higher than the living quarters on a nuclear sub. So? You deal with it.
The key is that the more we learn about Mars, the less suitable it looks.
Which is comforting since that’s exactly what you would expect. I’d rather that than have a false belief in safety. You can mitigate something you understand.
Its only real advantage was having water
Uh, no.
The Martian atmosphere is not an advantage
Uh, yes.
Landers don’t need parachutes which bring their own problems (which you mentioned.) What they do need is a high enough delta V. With powered descent the highest martian winds will have no effect.
the 20 minute time delay to Earth making telebotic support difficult
There will be no delay at all. Earth will not be running the robots. They will get the data the martians discover. I suggest we supply them with as many rovers as they can operate.
Again, Mars will be tamed someday, but not until the technology required is first developed on the Moon.
Only if it’s designed for mars and not just the moon.
Mars Direct is a dead end proposal
Even Zubrin has pretty much abandoned it. But what it did do is get us thinking in the right direction.
one that will contribute [little] to opening the Solar System
But it already has contributed and nothing can take that away from him.
If life is found on Mars you may as well forget settling there. The environment protection part of the OST will go into effect and any humans that go to the surface will only do so under strict protocols to protect further contamination of the planet.
Ken,
And what did it contribute beyond speculation on a dead end idea?
As a side note, the idea that the future of humanity will be on Earth like planets is also a legacy of 20 Century science fiction. We now know that for most of it’s history the Earth would have not been suitable human habitation. Indeed, as recently as 700 million years ago it was a giant snowball. That is why the odds of finding another Earth are probably as long as your average lottery ticket. That is why humanity’s future in space will be in the form of Asimov Habitats and the value of the Moon will be it’s role in creating the first Asimov Habitats. Mars is a great goal for science but its way off the path to creating a space faring society.
We now know that for most of it’s history the Earth would have not been suitable human habitation. Indeed, as recently as 700 million years ago it was a giant snowball. That is why the odds of finding another Earth are probably as long as your average lottery ticket.
No. The Kepler probe suggest billions of potential Earth like planets. Good odds for lottery tickets.
Its a dumb argument anyways. We already can bend harsh environments to our will, Mars is very much within reach. That’s what “exceptionalism” really means on a solar system scale.
Perhaps we’re not yet ready to make such decisions? Retreat back into caves? Hide under rocks?
That dead idea made thinking about mars reasonable after the 90 day report had pretty much killed the idea. The fact that the mission architecture needs further refinements doesn’t change that.
environment protection
This becomes your argument after toxicity???
Ken, life on Mars, present or past, probably would throw a major delay in any plans. The scientific community would of course desperately want lots of samples, but they would definitely not want to run the risk of contaminating those samples (or that environment) with any bacteria that humans carry, and we carry pretty much everything. I would expect a ten to twenty year delay while they argue for robotic sample/return missions. It might even stretch to thirty years if they find signs of past life but nothing current, since the life must still be there, hidden away, as long as we don’t make the task ten times harder by introducing organisms from Earth that will cause false positives, if not slowly take over. And of course there’s the possiblity that there’s been ancient cross-contamination would could be confused with newly introduced bacteria.
It doesn’t take much to get naysayers and environmentalists fired up, and on projects this expensive, politicians are all looking for an excuse to delay, cut funding, or entirely abandon it.
So if hard evidence of life is found, it will have a ripple effect through the whole Mars community, providing reasons for both increased impetus and massive caution.
All the more reason to get people on the surface ASAP. If we find anything alive, it won’t be traces. It might get contaminated, but so what? That contamination isn’t going to be spread immediately to the whole planet. It would mean sending more people to do better research. This isn’t something you can reasonably do entirely with robots. Once people are on the surface, they aren’t going to be pulled off once life is found. Any contamination damage is already done.
They’ll run the DNA on it and everybody will be happy. Those that aren’t can go cry and whine to their hearts content. If results are inconclusive they send more researchers.
That’s probably true, but finding life on Mars will mostly motivate the NIH science geeks. General colonization won’t start until we discover nightlife on Mars.
Still, I think Venus is probably a much easier place to build. It’s got lots of oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen in its atmosphere, which 50 km up is almost Earth normal, yet a nitrogen oxygen atmosphere would provide almost the same buoyancy as helium does on Earth. Near the surface, a craft the size of the new Goodyear blimps, which here only have a 2 ton useful lift capacity, there would lift 250 tons. That makes major mining and ore transport a trivial exercise. Heck, it’s so dense that a spent Shuttle external tank wouldn’t even hit the surface. It would just float due to the residual hydrogen and oxygen gas (if enough was left in the tank).
And unlike Mars, trash disposal would never be a problem because the floating cities would just toss it over the side.
nooneofconsequence
There may be billions of planets in the habitable zone, but I will be surprise if one in a 1000 are as habitable as Earth.
But I predict that by the time we reach the stars it’s the idea of living on a planetary surface will be viewed as a throwback to the attitude of caveman days. By then the idea of terra forming a planet and destroying its native ecosystem just so folks could live on its surface will be viewed something from humanity’s savage past. For one thing there is a rapidly developing ethos developing about respecting existing ecosystems. Just look at the protocols being developed for planetary protection.
For another there is the thread throughout human history of increasing mastery of humanity’s environment and decreasing the impact of nature on it. Just compare a modern city to a village of even a few hundred years ago, let alone one in the Neolithic Era. Increasingly humans have used technology to isolate themselves from the randomness of nature. Asimov Habitats take this to a new level by elimination of weather and geological hazards in addition to eliminating variation in food supplies and other hazards of nature. Why would humans born and raised in such habitats want to turn the clock back to live like “savages” on a planetary surface? Oh, there will be the back to nature types, just as there are those that go “wild” in the Alaska wilderness. But they will only make up a small percentage of any space faring population, far too small to justify terra forming a planet even if there is no indigenous ecosystem to prevent it.
No the idea of terra forming and settling a planet will seem as outdated as the idea of damming the Mediterranean and rebuilding Africa that was proposed by the Germans in the 1930’s. Google Atlantropa to see what they planned to do.
Ken,
Sorry, but they already beat you to it. Missions to Mars must meet Category IV standards under NASA Planetary Protection Protocols. And although NASA does not issue launch licenses its standards are taken into account when the FAA does. Just ask anyone who actually pursed and received a license for a lunar mission.
http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/bodies-mars/
Category IV refers to the COSPAR standards.
http://cosparhq.cnes.fr/Scistr/Pppolicy.htm
So basically Mars is already effectively off limits for humans, especially for those intending to settle there. Until the question of life of Mars is settled and its proven beyond doubt that none exist its unlikely any humans to travel to the surface except for short carefully managed stays. That is why the focus in the planning community is on missions to the Martian moons, to use them a bases to learn more about the possibility of life so we don’t contaminate any results.
So Dr. Zubrin’s schemes are truly out of date and out of touch with the 21st Century. Its also why the focus for commercial ventures is on the Moon which is only a Category II destination.
George,
I like the idea of floating cities on Venus, or at the very least a floating mining settlement.
BTW, if any one is interested in the issue of sending humans to Mars and the problem of planetary protection, here is a good paper on one solution to it.
http://www.spacearchitect.org/pubs/IAC-04-IAA.3.7.2.10.pdf
Thomas Matula,
The practical concern at the moment over cross contamination is that of understanding if an ecosystem genuinely exists on Mars. For the very first attacks to its findings will be that it is just life from Earth that hijacked a ride, like the bacteria in the Surveyor 3 camera recovered by the Apollo 12 crew.
Partly the motivation for Mars Sample Return (many different samples) is to provide a broad range of evidence with appropriate provenance/controls as well as the ability to subject samples after the fact to novel tests of potential after the fact challenges.
This may be complicated by the preexisting potential that Mars and Earth have exchanged materials over a millennium – there might be shared biological heritage that looks a lot like contamination.
Past the politics of agreeing that a planet with an active ecosystem had indeed be found … would come an enormous debate over what it meant.
Guessing anything more than that would be presuming too much.
Nooneofconsequence,
Actually new research shows that the Surveyor 3 bacteria probably never left Earth.
http://www.space.com/11536-moon-microbe-mystery-solved-apollo-12.html
[[[ As it turns out, there’s a dirty little secret that has come to light about clean room etiquette at the time the Surveyor 3 camera was scrutinized.
“The claim that a microbe survived 2.5 years on the moon was flimsy, at best, even by the standards of the time,” said John Rummel, chairman of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Panel on Planetary Protection. “The claim never passed peer review, yet has persisted in the press — and on the Internet — ever since.]]]
Which isn’t a surprise as I remember discussing with Dr. Mike Duke the reports of water in lunar samples and he indicated the risk of contamination because of the sample handling procedures was significant enough to make such claims very difficult to prove. Remember, 40 years ago we understood a lot less about handling material to prevent contamination of samples.
True, no exact predictions are possible if life is found on Mars, but given the increased sensitivity to protecting natural ecosystems on Earth, combined with the lack of any economic case for Mars settlement, makes the likelihood that Mars would be off limits for settlement until the question of Mars life is settled beyond doubt quite likely, which in regards to negative findings will probably take several decades.
So in regards to the 21st Century space settlement it will be the Moon, Asimov Habitats and Asteroids, not Mars. And by the 22nd Century settlement of Mars will be considered as outdated as Vilhjalmur Stefansson arguments for Arctic settlement. Indeed, to bring this discussion full circle, Vilhjalmur Stefansson reminds me of Dr. Zubrin in his zealous views of the future direction of human settlement.
Thomas Matula,
Yes, I’ve heard that. Also been present for many tedious investigations into scientific rectitude of all kinds. It is an enormous “hall of mirrors”, where much of the time you cannot be certain of the provenance of a claim (or to be able to conclusively eliminate such as well).
Which is why I used the term cross contamination. The possibility that multiple sources of contaminates might be exchanged from either direction.
What is more important yet unmeasurable is what happens when the public twigs to another planet with an active ecosystem. Do not underestimate the impact this may have, nor how idiosyncratic the onset / dwell time may be.
This is far more important than our protocols regarding ecosystem protection or economic yield. It is more about the nature and/or perceptions of the people of America – you cannot guess either how they will jump, or what this might cause them to do.
I watched a very powerful Senator speak with a constituent about this … more than a few times … and we were both surprised by the results. Theres the potential for a very strong reaction present that is very intriguing to politicians.
That is why one can’t presume much beyond this point.
As to orbital habitats, there is no such reaction present. The public sees no difference, no excitement with regard to space stations of any sort – kind of like a cosmic camping expedition. They are in no way comparable politically. This is part of the frustration of getting any political advantage out of any space station.
Ironically, all space stations in all countries/cultures appear to be similarly afflicted. The best part of the ISS is the sharing of cost. The worst part of the ISS is that international participation jacks up costs by more than 5x (because its handled so poorly).
nooneofconsequence
OK, you are referring government space and going to Mars.
I am focused on private space as I see little role for government in space settlement.
In terms of government policy, an extension of the Seabed Mining Act to space would be nice, but not necessary. A legal framework allowing space settlements to incorporate in a format similar to cities do under state law would also be nice, but again, is not necessary. Current space law is adequate for access to resources for space settlements as is current corporation law. Common law precedents already set show that there are no legal show stoppers to creating a lunar settlement or an Asimov Habitat under United States law. And there are places like the Isle of Man that are open to creating any laws needed.
I see NASA has having an even more limited role in space settlement. The only role I see is in tech transfer, but that is already available via NASA Act Agreements already being used by Bigelow and groups like the International Lunar Research Park. There is no need to push NASA to do more for the simple reason NASA has neither the organizational culture, structure or focus to take a lead role in space settlement. Its just not a good match and its sad to see all the efforts organizations like NSS and SFF have wasted with their focus on NASA.
No, space settlements is not nor should not be a government space goal, nor a function of government. The road to success will be a private one built on identifying and creating a scalable and practical business model. And public opinions will have zero impact on that model, no more then then public opinion has on a firm deciding to build a new comsat.
In regards to your belief that somehow finding life on Mars will create a public outcry to send humans there, good luck.
Given that nearly 80 percent of the public believes UFOs are visiting the Earth, and a majority believe the government is hiding information about them the discovery of some microbes on Mars will excite no one but the science community. The rest of the public will simply yawn and say, so what? The only ones likely to spurred into doing anything will be the environmentalists who will push to extend their environmental ethos to Mars and start pushing to turn the planet into a scientific preserve as has been the case with Antarctica. Given the size of the environmentalists community, their connections and political savvy it will be a slam dunk, so say good bye to any of Dr. Zubrin’s Mars schemes.
But quite honesty I do care one way or another, for just as NASA is not on the critical path to space settlement, neither is Mars.
Thomas Matula,
OK, you are referring government space and going to Mars.
Nope.
In regards to your belief that somehow finding life on Mars will create a public outcry to send humans there, good luck.
Nope. Not that arrogant.
Just an observer of human nature.
Its fascinating – hanging around really potent politicians, the best ones seem to find the nerve endings of the public. True of the best in business too. Yes, in general the public is a bunch of nuts … even though … they are the people of America nonetheless.
My point is about visceral issues. This one hits hard. And has unpredictable results.
Certain savvy politicians have openly asked why the public often doesn’t relate to grand space undertakings as they’d expect. The reason appears to be the perception of “permanent” and “temporary”.
“Permanent” means like earth – you can grow food from the land, shelter from the elements, and extract resources from surroundings/ground. “Temporary” means anything else. You cannot “sell” them their perceptions either – this one’s highly resistant to manipulation. Too fundamental.
Seems to hold true across a broad swath of cultures/economic/education. From the poorest to billionaires.
They see artificial environments quite differently. Irrespective of space or earth based. This has ramifications for the viability of such projects. And private funding for such, who have closely examined this behavior.
Honestly, don’t know what it means. But I’d like to. Just that it catches the eye of some of the most powerful people in the world. So perhaps its something to be mindful of, unless one wishes to be ignorant in view of them.
nooneofconsequence
If you discover something on Mars beyond microbes you may get the public’s interests, but they are just not going to get excited about bacteria.
I am more then a mere observer, I actually research how public attitudes are formed about different issues. My day job is teaching students how to replace opinions on human behavior with hard data and models. My Dissertation successfully developed an attitude model to predict public support for Commercial Spaceports and I have actually done surveys on public attitudes towards space policy.
Based on my research the search for life always ranks at the bottom in terms of what the public wants for a space goal, while Planetary Protection and Space Solar Power dominate. Traditional space advocate goals like space settlement, Mars, the Moon are all in the single digits, really in the range of sample error. And I will take a good survey, hard data, over opinion any day.
[[[Certain savvy politicians have openly asked why the public often doesn’t relate to grand space undertakings as they’d expect. The reason appears to be the perception of “permanent” and “temporary”.]]]
Which is an interesting theory you should research, especially beyond the very small community of space advocates. But the answer is far more simple. Cost/benefit.
The average individual is able to visualize the potential direct benefits from planetary protection or clean energy from space and so they are willing to support both with their tax dollars. By contrast they don’t see any benefits from finding life on Mars or creating a settlement there. Might make for some interesting TV shows, and some interesting websites for their kids, but nothing they see as worth the cost of their tax dollars. Which is why most support NASA for the same reason they did in the 1960’s, as a symbol of national power and prestige. But the end of the Shuttle will likely take that feeling with it and that is why I expect support among the general public for NASA will decline despite the hand waving of space advocates it’s a step forward.
[[[They see artificial environments quite differently. Irrespective of space or earth based. This has ramifications for the viability of such projects.]]]]
Again, I don’t care about the public sentiment on space settlements, because that has nothing to do with their economic viability. Indeed, it might even impact I negatively as it creates the wrong impression of them. Just look at the case of the O’Neill Habitats with their misleading image of what a space settlement would look like and the false path it led many advocates on to push CATS instead of letting demand pull it. And even more important, as the early history of colonization of the New World illustrates, such public sentiments end up providing you with the wrong type of settlers. Nearly all of the first wave colonies failed or came close to failure because the colonists were from the noble class and more interested in getting rich quick from gold and silver then doing the hard work of growing food and building infrastructure.
In many ways this also illustrates the problem with space tourism and New Space which is driven more by the desire to fly into space then by sustainable space settlement.
And for space settlements to be viable they must be especially sustainable economically, and that means they must provide economic value to the human econsystem. In short they must pay their way along each step. That is why a business model that is scalable is so important. And why you want hard core business professionals crafting the business model, not starry eye dreamers. Mr. Bigelow is a good example of this approach with his inflatable habitats designed for specific market needs. No, they are not space settlements, but they are on the right path to the technology that will be needed. Now if New Space is only able to disengage itself from its fixation with NASA and provide him with his transportation system….
The same goes for the ILRP which is focusing on the creating the technology for the robots that will lead the way to lunar settlement. Neither is much in the public eye, nor needs to be. But both are moving towards the goal the creation of space settlements one step sustainable step at a time.
Really the path to lunar settlement is clear. First robots to explore the Moon and determine its economic potential. Then more robots to start the process of exploiting the Moon’s economic resources. The ILRP is an enabler for both of these stages. Then the next logical step will be humans going to the surface to support the robots and increase their efficiency. This is where the Bigelow habitats will fit in, giving them a place to live. Then you get an upward spiral going of more economic output increasing the demand for more human settlers. At some point the settlement(s) reach a point where they individuals going there do so to live and rise their family, not just to earn money. Its not magic or visionary, just plain simple hard work. But then that was the case with all the successful colonies in the New World.
By contrast there is no such economic path for Mars settlement. Its too far to allow the control needed for robots to prepare the way which is also the same problem with NEOs. Mars has little of economic value to Earth, which is why the economic development of Mars is just not viable especially with the added restrictions, and expense, of category IV planetary protection requirements. Dr. Zubrin’s arguments for Mars are far more utopian then economic, the same failing that doomed Dr. O’Neill’s space settlements to fantasy.