'Getting To Mars' (MSNBC)

[DocM]

First of a series of articles named "Getting to Mars"

MSNBC....

Why we have to leave our cradle ... and get to Mars

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. ? Mars has teased the imagination since early astronomers discovered that it doesn?t flicker. It glows red as it moves forward and backward in odd, yet predictable, patterns. It was noted in the records of Babylonian, Chinese and Mayan stargazers, and it has figured prominently in ancient mythology.

Galileo developed the science of astronomy with his invention of the telescope, and as knowledge of our planetary neighbor grew, Mars appeared to bear a strange kinship to Earth. Astronomers determined that it had close to a 24-hour day and the appearance of an atmosphere, and some even speculated that it harbored intelligent life.

As telescopes improved, observers learned that Mars had two moons, a polar cap and a curious array of surface features ? the notorious canali, described by Italy's Giovanni Schiaparelli in 1877.

We Earthlings have sent robots to study Mars' surface many times over the past three decades. Last month, NASA announced new findings: If life ever existed on Mars, the longest-lasting habitats were most likely below the Red Planet?s surface .

The new interpretation comes from years of mineral-mapping data, covering more than 350 sites on Mars examined by European and NASA spacecraft. ?The study suggests that Martian environments with abundant liquid water existed only during short episodes. ?These episodes occurred toward the end of hundreds of millions of years during which warm water interacted with subsurface rocks. If the research holds up, it's plausible to think that life in some form could have existed back then.

?Our interpretation is a shift from thinking that the warm, wet environment was mostly at the surface to thinking it was mostly in the subsurface, with limited exceptions,? said Johns Hopkins University's Scott Murchie, principal investigator for the CRISM spectrometer on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Murchie said that one of the exceptions might be Gale Crater, the landing site for NASA?s $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory mission. A car-sized rover named Curiosity is on its way to land in August near the foot of a layered mountain inside the crater. ?Layers of this mountain contain water-formed minerals, and the rover will travel for miles investigating the alluvial fan of water-carried sediments. NASA hopes the mission will help experts figure out how future humans could live on the Martian landscape.

The question is, can NASA afford to think about sending humans to Mars when the space agency is at what are arguably the most perplexing crossroads in its 53 years of existence?

NASA is busy turning over many of its routine operations in low Earth orbit to commercial partners, while setting its sights on what America?s greatest exploration arm should be doing.

Here's how NASA's deputy administrator, Lori Garver, described the situation this month: "Our commercial partners are making real progress opening up a new job-creating segment of the economy that will allow NASA to focus on our next big challenges ? missions to asteroids and Mars."

>

> (long article)

>

We invite you to join us in the new year for "Getting to Mars," a new series of reports about the future of Red Planet missions and the prospects for making Mars our second planetary home. It just might be the 21st century's promised land.

[neoadorable]

drum roll! this is exactly the kind of attitude we need to maintain, keep the pressure on. humanity's destiny is as a spacefaring, multi-world civilization! this cannot be denied! the article is well-written, i hope it reaches many people and convinces many that this needs to be done. of course that should be as common sense as convincing the average person that they should continue breathing, but go figure. thanks for posting this Doc!

[Dinggus]

Wasn't there already a volunteer list? I told the wife I'd go without her, ha.

[.Neo]

"It just might be the 21st century's promised land."

Except there's literally nothing there.

[DocM]

Except there's literally nothing there.

There's a s***load of usable minerals for most any purpose including construction, subsurface water ice (drinking, hydrogen fuel and oxygen), an atmosphere that can be processed in numerous ways, and a high enough gravity to be acceptable for humans while still being easier to get off-planet. Add locally manufactured thin layer solar and nuclear power and you have the makings for a long term presence with locally producable spacefaring capabilities.

[DrakeN2k]

Space for out stupidly fast growing population.

Resources to consume to maintain our stupidly fast growing population

Or a planet to escape to after we destroy Earth due to our stupidly fast growing population.

[Hum]

But the water is terrible on Mars !

drum roll! this is exactly the kind of attitude we need to maintain, keep the pressure on. humanity's destiny is as a spacefaring, multi-world civilization!

In truth, Humans are already spread out there in Space. :happy:

[Dot Matrix]

We should have been on Mars years ago.

[DocM]

Just to put things into perspective population wise -

? at the population density of NYC you could move the entire 6 billion plus population of Earth to the US state of Texas

? at the population density of Paris it would take the states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana to house them

? at the density of Houston it would take about 2/3 of the ccontinental US - from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and across to the Rockies. No one in either of the coastal regions.

[Hum]

^ Silliness.

Man does not live by physical space alone. :laugh:

And we are already running out of simple things, like clean, drinkable water.

Not to mention the costlier things.

[DocM]

Have you ever been to Tokyo? :p

Drinable water is very solvable, it's a matter of will and politics than anything else.

[DrakeN2k]

Just to put things into perspective population wise -

? at the population density of NYC you could move the entire 6 billion plus population of Earth to the US state of Texas

? at the population density of Paris it would take the states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana to house them

? at the density of Houston it would take about 2/3 of the ccontinental US - from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and across to the Rockies. No one in either of the coastal regions.

True but what about farms, big vast resources production like mines and how much of the sea we fish.

and even if those where included. its still bad for the environment as the planet can only sustain 2bl people

Toyko is most likely not sustainable

[DocM]

That 2bil figure is bogus.

Ever hear of vertical hydroponic farming? Indoor fisheries? There is also the IMO very irrational fears of genetically engineered crops that up productivity and nutrient levels while reducing fertilization needs and susceptability to diseases.

The whole FUD of "2bil" doesn't take such productivity improving techniques into account. It also doesn't take into account the increasing rate of these food technology advances.

[vincent]

Wonder if conditions on Mars would be more ideal for us if it had a larger moon that phobos? One with more mass..

[Hum]

Would help if we could transfer a few of Earth's lakes to Mars. ;)

[DocM]

Based on radar observations just the South Pole of Mars has about 1.6 million cubic kilometers of water ice. Add the North Pole and the known subsurface ice around the rest of the planet and water from Earth is the last thing it needs.

Besides that, why ship water from Earth when Ceres is closer? Its volume of water is roughly 200?million cubic kilometres.

[Hum]

^ I was just thinking of what a glut of water Earth has, compared to Mars.

I know it wouldn't be practical to ship it.

I do wonder if we could restore the bulk of the atmosphere to Mars, that was ripped away thousands of years ago ...

[DocM]

With a very weak magnetosphere (due to its core solidifying) the solar wind is what gradually blew away Mars' atmosphere. Any new atmosphere would require regular replenishment, but with nuclear power and ISRU it's possible. Start by increasing the CO2 level, then add nitrogen & fast growing plants and the O2 will take care of itself.

[Black Flash]

True but what about farms, big vast resources production like mines and how much of the sea we fish.

and even if those where included. its still bad for the environment as the planet can only sustain 2bl people

Toyko is most likely not sustainable

I'd say that Tokyo is actually a lot more sustainable than other sprawiling cities that are fraction of its size, high densities allow land to be used for better purposes (agriculture,energy production).

The Tokyo area is a bit extreme though considering the size of Japan itself, its has the population of Canada but has tiny amount of natural resources in comparison.

[neoadorable]

Hum, making it official that if there's ever a neowin trip to Mars i am NOT bunking with you. six months of your ramblings and it'll be one of us out the airlock :rofl:

and Doc said it, at the very least Mars is the most habitable planet in our system outside of Earth, and it's basicaly one big ball of ore and deuterium. but the main reason we need Mars is the reason Europe and Asia needed the Americas - growth. without expanding to other worlds, we will stagnate and die, and it won't be short and dramatic like in a movie, it'll be a long, wasting death that will likely take centuries. no, that won't happen. the space revolution is coming and it will make the industrial revolution look like child's play in its ramifications.

[Hum]

^ I am very quiet for hours on end.

Can't think of anyone better to bunk with. :laugh:

[neoadorable]

it's the burst of hypersonic activity out of you that i'm worried about...i don't think the life support system will be able to handle so much hot air :p