Mars to Stay

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Artist's impression of a long-term mission to Mars (NASA, 2009)

Under the motto Mars to Stay , the proposal was made that the first astronauts sent to Mars should stay on the planet indefinitely. This could reduce the costs of the flight to Mars and ensure permanent colonization of Mars . The former Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin is particularly committed to this proposal. He excelled several times with the slogan " Forget the Moon, Let's Head to Mars! " ("Forget the moon! On to Mars!") . The Mars Society also founded an initiative for Mars to Stay. The concept of a Mars-to-Stay mission was systematically outlined in 1996 at the Case for Mars VI workshop during a presentation by George William Herbert entitled One Way to Mars .

The suggestion

First, six astronauts would fly to Mars . Then 24 more settlers could follow over five years, so that a Martian colony would develop independently. The surface of Mars offers all the raw materials that are necessary to sustain a human community in the long term. Mars is also superior to the moon in this regard . Therefore, a permanent settlement on Mars appears to be the most fertile way to ensure that humanity evolves into a space-propelled species and spreads across multiple celestial bodies. It is believed that a permanent Mars colony could grow from an original thirty to forty pioneers if fabbers and in vitro fertilization are used.

According to Buzz Aldrin's initiative, a similar program to explore Mars over longer periods of time would require astronauts:

  • 30 years old: selected pioneers are offered to help colonize Mars
  • 30–35 years old: Training and social acclimatization as the basis for long-term seclusion and communication with a delay
  • 35 years old: Trip of three married couples to Mars, followed by a dozen or more other married couples within the following years
  • 35–65 years old: expansion of protected underground living space; Artificial insemination ensures genetic diversity
  • 65 years old: first-generation settlers are given the choice of returning to Earth or spending their retirement years on Mars

Aldrin comments on his concept with the words: “(...) who knows what progress will be made. The first generation can retire there, or maybe we can bring them back. "

Development and existence of the settlement

The first explorers set down equipment in orbits and on scattered landing sites (at a significant distance from the main settlement) so that later trips to Mars can be undertaken more easily and with less risk, as spare parts can be used with a certain degree of certainty if the The crossing or the landing breaks down.

Extensive subterranean, pressurized, residential complexes would represent the first step towards human settlement. Robert Zubrin notes in his work Mars Direct that such residential complexes can be built on levels or in slopes from easily manufactured Mars bricks in the style of Roman atriums . After this initial phase of the construction of the first residential complexes, radiation-inhibiting and wear-resistant geodesic domes made of hard plastic could be built on the surface of Mars , which could serve as permanent living space and for growing plants. This would also revive a domestic industry that could produce plastics , ceramics and glass from local raw materials without any significant difficulties .

The longer-term undertaking to earth ( terraform ) Mars initially assumes a period of global warming , during which the Martian regolith releases an atmosphere and a water cycle gets going. Zubrin describes three paths of global warming and assumes that they are most likely to be successful in a mutual interaction: space mirrors that heat the surface of Mars; Factories on the ground adding halogenated hydrocarbons to the atmosphere ; the sowing of bacteria that metabolize water, nitrogen and carbon , releasing ammonia and methane (these gases would work in advance of global warming). While Mars is being grounded, settlement can advance vigorously.

In light of the results of The Case for Mars , it is conceded that any Martian colony would have to remain partially dependent on the earth for centuries. Zubrin argues, however, that Mars could still become a profitable investment field because concentrated deposits of metals could be found on it, which are of a similar or greater value than that of silver and which could have escaped the millennia of human mining, so that they can be found could now sell with net profit on earth, and because the Martian water resources contain five times as much deuterium as the earthly, so that here the Martian production of an extremely expensive nuclear fuel could be worthwhile. Those who emigrate to Mars could, in view of this, be certain of being able to pursue industrial activity there, so that it is assumed that Mars could strongly attract settlers through high wages. Labor shortages and high wages on Mars could become the engine of both social and technological developments of the future.

Risks

Artistic view of a manned mission to Mars
Painting by Les Bossinas ( Lewis Research Center ), NASA

Zubrin assumes that cosmic radiation and weightlessness are not unreasonably great dangers and that the risk of cancer increases only slightly through a longer stay in space. It is believed that after arriving on Mars, the muscles and the immune system will almost completely recover. Dangers from the introduction of extraterrestrial substances do not appear to arise, since there are no host organisms on Mars in which any viruses could have developed.

Zubrin counters the request to first train on the moon, which is closer to us, to conquer Mars: “In the end, it is much easier to travel to Mars from a low earth orbit than from the moon and use it as an outpost. represents a pointless waste of resources. “The moon could appear superficially as a suitable place to practice techniques for the exploration and colonization of Mars, but it is fundamentally different from this because it has no atmosphere, none of the Martian-like geology and with a much longer period of rotation also have much greater temperature fluctuations. Antarctica , terrestrial desert areas and precisely regulated vacuum chambers of easily accessible terrestrial NASA centers, on the other hand, represent much better training facilities at lower costs.

Recording in public

Artistic vision of a residential complex on Mars
(John Frassanito and Associates for NASA, 1993)

Moon traveler Buzz Aldrin said during an interview on Mars-to-Stay initiatives: "If the United States space program were to send a mission to Mars, the astronauts participating should be willing to stay there." Aldrin argues that the The time and financial expenditure of a manned Mars mission “justify more than just a short stay, so that the passengers should see themselves as real pioneers. Like the Pilgrims who came to the New World or the families who made their way to the Wild West, they shouldn't plan to return home. ”According to the advocates of Mars, the moon is a minor side trip of two or more three days, but in the end it offers no potential for independent settlements. Mars, on the other hand, is known to have significant reserves of frozen water and all of the basic elements, and comes closer to both the light and gravity conditions of the earth. Aldrin says, "It is easier to establish yourself there and secure the supplies for the people than to do it on the moon." In an interview with reporters, Aldrin said that the red planet offers far greater potential as a settlement than that Satellite of the earth: "If we bring a few people down there and take care of their safety, would you want to take on all the hardship and bring them back right after a year or after a year and a half?" - "They have to rather go there knowing that they are pioneers and settlers and not looking forward to their coming home after a few years. "

Aldrin gave a full explanation of why he advocates Mars to Stay in an article for Popular Mechanics in May 2009:

“The agency's current plans for space exploration would waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars on reaching the moon in 2020 - a refreshed re-enactment of what we did forty years ago. NASA's current lunar plans are not a stepping stone to Mars, but a detour. They will derail our efforts on Mars by draining the money and engineering talent for the next two decades. If we are to seek to bring humans to Mars for any length of time - and I believe that should be our overall goal for the foreseeable future - we must crucially redirect our attention to something else. Our purely exploratory endeavors should go higher than just looking for a place that we have already been to six times. In the past few years my philosophy regarding colonization of Mars has evolved. I now believe that people who visit the red planet should make a commitment to stay there permanently. Tickets for a one-way trip to Mars will make the missions cheaper and technically easier, and get us there in less time. More importantly, they will ensure that our outpost on Mars grows steadily with the arrival of more permanent settlers. In the place of explorers, travelers to Mars without a return ticket will become the twenty-first century pilgrims, paving the way for a new way of life. This requires a special kind of person. In place of the traditional pilot / scientist / engineer, the permanent settlers of Mars will be chosen more because they have a particular personality characterized by adaptability, ingenuity and determination in the face of the unpredictable. In short, it will be about those who know how to survive . "

While Zubrin summarized the thoughts of his work The Case for Mars at a hearing of the US Human Space Flight Plans Committee in 2009 , dozens of posters were printed with the inscription "Mars Direct - Cowards Return to the Moon" ("Mars Direct - Cowards return to the." Moon back ”) at the Carnegie Institute . A passionate turmoil among advocates of space exploration, from both criticism and approval, prompted the Mars Artists Community to print several other similar posters with slogans such as “Traitors Return to Earth” or “What Would Zheng He Do?” .

The hard science fiction -author Mike Brotherton was Mars to Stay for both economic considerations like those about the security out to be attractive, but even more because it would meet the standing at the end of task by which "our manned space program to the Man is brought, at least philosophically and in the long run: as a step to colonize other worlds. ”Two-thirds of those who responded to a survey on his website expressed interest in a ticket for a one-way trip to Mars,“ if the parameters of the mission are clearly defined (not suicidal). "

In June 2010, Aldrin reiterated in an interview for Vanity Fair Mars to Stay:

“Did the Mayflower Pilgrim Fathers sit around Plymouth Rock and wait for the return trip? You came here to settle. And that's what we should be doing on Mars too. If you go to Mars, you must have made up your mind that you will be there forever. The more people we have there, the more it can become a permanent environment. With very rare exceptions, the people who go to Mars shouldn't come back. Once you get to the surface, you are there. "

Comments in the "New York Times"

Mars to Stay has been explicitly presented as an advocate idea in two New York Times comments .

Paul Davies, "Life (and Death) on Mars." New York Times, Jan. 15, 2004

Davies' advocacy for the cheaper, permanent option of “staying in the one way” arises from a reason well known and used in the relevant circles: “Mars is one of the few accessible places outside the earth where there is life could have given, (...) [and] as the only one of our sister planets suitable to tolerate the constant presence of humans. "

“Why is it so expensive to go to Mars? It is mainly the distance from the earth. Mars is 35 million miles away from us at the next point in its orbit, while the moon can be reached in a few days. And to top it off, Mars has a surface gravity that, while only 38 percent of that on Earth, is significantly greater than that of the Moon. It takes a lot of fuel to kick off Mars and return home. (...)

Without a few fundamental improvements in technology, the prospects of sending astronauts on a tour of Mars in the near future are slim, whatever the president says. Rather, the president's proposal to use the moon as a base - a place to assemble equipment and produce cheaper fuel - could become a very costly minor matter. At least there is a striking method to drastically reduce the costs and to bring Mars within the range of an early manned exploration. The answer lies in a one-way mission. "

According to Davies' plan, an initial colony of four astronauts would be equipped with a small nuclear reactor and a few SUVs, make their own oxygen, produce food, and even start construction projects using local raw materials. Backed up with food supplies, medical supplies, and replacement equipment from Earth, the colony would be sustained indefinitely. Davies argues that we shouldn't judge the risks of a Mars-to-Stay project as abnormally great when we consider that “some people, in the name of sport or adventure, go dice [and] dangerous with death in lustful glee Activities are commonplace that reduce life expectancy by exposing yourself to dangerous substances or conditions. "

“A hundred years ago, researchers went out to cross Antarctica, knowing full well that they could die in the process and that even if they succeeded, their health could be irreparably damaged. But the governments and the scientific societies were the willing sponsors of these companies. ”-“ Why should it be any different today? ”

Lawrence Krauss, "A One-Way Ticket to Mars." New York Times, September 1, 2009

On the basis of an argument similar to that of Aldrin, Lawrence Krauss asks, “Why is it so important to us to bring the Mars drivers back home?” While the thought of sending astronauts up forever is first heard as a cacophony may appear, the reasonable justification for exploration and settlement with tickets for a single journey has strong historical and practical roots. For example, the colonists and pilgrims of yore rarely set out in the expectation that they would travel back again. "Going into galaxies that no human has ever seen before doesn't have to bring you back home."

Krauss modifies the standard concept of Mars to Stay by "reserving the trip for older astronauts whose life expectancy is limited. Here I came across a significant group of scientists over 65 who would be willing to spend their remaining years on the red planet or somewhere else. ”This first generation of older astronauts would accept higher doses of radiation while building the permanent housing complex builds because the effects of the higher radiation would probably no longer have an effect on them during their lifetime.

“If it seems unrealistic to suggest that astronauts may be willing to leave their homes without the prospect of returning during their lifetime, consider the results of a series of informal surveys that I and several of my colleagues have recently conducted to have. One of my associates in Arizona recently accompanied a group of scientists and engineers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on a geological field trip. During the day he asked around who would be willing to go on a space mission with a one-way ticket. The members of the group raised their hands without exception. "

Krauss pursues other direct and pragmatic reasons why one could consider missions to explore space in only one direction. If the fuel for a journey home is carried on board, the massive size of the company can soar. "Manned space travel is so expensive and so dangerous -" (...) "We will have to find new, even very unusual solutions if we really want to expand the field of human civilization beyond our own planet." Food for the pioneers by means of unmanned spaceships and sending equipment is cheaper than an immediate return trip.

See also

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Eliza Strickland: Buzz Aldrin Speaks Out: Forget the Moon, Let's Head to Mars . June 26, 2006, Discover Magazine
  2. ^ A b Robert Zubrin , Richard Wagner: The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must . Free Press, Washington, D. C. 1996
  3. ↑ Rachel Durfee: Purchase a Lovely New Home On… Mars? Popular Science, October 31, 2008, accessed February 24, 2010 .
  4. ↑ Buzz Aldrin: Mars pioneers should stay there. COSMOS magazine, October 27, 2008, archived from the original on October 15, 2009 ; accessed on February 24, 2010 (English).
  5. ↑ Buzz Aldrin with David Noland: Buzz Aldrin to NASA: US Space Policy Is on the Wrong Track. In: Popular Mechanics. Retrieved February 24, 2010 .
  6. ^ Dwayne Day: The Space Review: Found art. The Space Review, August 10, 2009, accessed February 24, 2010 .
  7. ^ Mike Brotherton: Would You Accept a One-Way Ticket to Mars? September 4, 2009, accessed February 24, 2010 .
  8. ↑ Eric Spitznagel: Buzz Aldrin Is Not All That Impressed With Walking on the Moon. Vanity Fair, June 25, 2010, accessed June 25, 2010 .
  9. ^ Paul Davies: Life (and Death) on Mars. New York Times, January 15, 2004, accessed February 24, 2010 .
  10. ^ A b Lawrence M. Krauss: A One-Way Ticket to Mars. New York Times, August 31, 2009, accessed February 24, 2010 .