Why Mars is the next step for humanity

This article by Ashley Dove-Jay, PhD, was originally published in the World Economic Forum.

A boy poses with an image of Mars projected on a wall during a gathering to watch the red planet. (Reuters / Ali Jarekji)

Elon Musk has built a US$12 billion company in an endeavour to pave the way to Mars for humanity. He insists that Mars is a “long-term insurance policy” for “the light of consciousness” in the face of climate change, extinction events, and our recklessness with technology.

On the other hand, astronaut Chris Hadfield is sceptical: “Humanity is not going extinct,” he told me. He added:

There’s no great compelling reason to go, apart from curiosity, and that’s not going to be enough to sustain the immense cost necessary with the technology that exists right now.

But I question our future, stuck here on Earth. Our environment is a highly balanced system and we are the destabilising element. Pursuing “green” initiatives is no long-term solution to the wall we’re hurtling towards, they’re speed bumps. If this is where humankind is destined to remain, then we shall find ourselves fighting over whatever is left of it.

Politically speaking, sending humans into space brings nations together – the International Space Station stood as the physical manifestation of the reunification of the USA and Russia and is now a platform for broader international co-operation.

Space exploration is also inspiring: during NASA’s Apollo programme to the Moon, the number of graduates in mathematics, engineering and the sciences in the US doubled. Igniting the imagination of that generation helped propel the US into the dominant position it’s held since the 1960s. What could a Mars programme do?

The Moon is not a stepping stone

Wouldn’t the Moon, so much nearer than Mars, be a better first step? Actually, no – it’s just too different. It’s better to test hardware and train people in analogs on Earth, such as the geologically similar high-altitude desert in Utah or the cold and dry Canadian Arctic desert. Why the European Space Agency has declared the Moon a stepping-stone to Mars is beyond me, as doing so increases the cost of a Mars programme hugely.

It takes about 50% more energy to put something on the surface of the Moon than it does on Mars. The Martian atmosphere can be used to slow down approaching spacecraft, instead of the need for extra fuel to slow the descent. It would also mean developing two different sets of landing techniques and hardware. There are reasons to go to the Moon, just not if your ultimate destination is Mars.

Even colonising the Moon is questionable: it simply hasn’t the resources to sustain an advanced colony. Mars has fertile soil, an abundance of water (as ice), a carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere and a 24-and-a-half hour day. The Moon’s soil is not fertile, water is as rare, it has no effective atmosphere, and a 708-hour day. It’s feasible to introduce biological life to Mars, but not the Moon.

T-shirts on Mars

With only a relatively small push, Mars could be returned to its former warm, wet, hospitable state. Raising the temperature at the south pole by a few degrees would see frozen CO2 in the soil begin to gasify. As a greenhouse gas, it would further raise the temperature, gasifying more CO2 in a self-sustained global-warming process.

Eventually, water frozen into the soil would liquefy, covering half of the planet. After about a century, Mars would settle down with an atmosphere about as dense as the lowland Himalayas and a climate suitable for T-shirts.

The technological hurdles

Hadfield warns that “we need to invent a lot of things” before going to Mars, and that “there’s no great advantage to being the early explorers who die”. Few would disagree with that, but what are the challenges a crewed mission to Mars faces?

Radiation: An astronaut would receive a lifetime allowable dose of radiation in a single 30-month round-trip, including 18 months on the surface. But this is only equivalent to increasing the lifetime cancer risk from about 20% to 23%. As the majority of this is received in transit between planets, with proper radiological protection on the ship, it would actually be (radiologically speaking) healthier for an astronaut to live on Mars with a radiation dose of 0.10 sieverts per year than to smoke on Earth at 0.16 sieverts per year.

There is no single practical solution to the radiation problem. One strategy I helped develop was to optimise the internal layout of the equipment and structures in the Mars habitat module to minimise exposure – placing existing bulk in all the right places. This reduced exposure by about 20%, without adding any mass. Even taking empty sandbags, packing them with Martian soil and putting them on the roof would be a simple and effective measure on Mars. Radiation is an issue to tackle, but it’s not a deal-breaker.

Power: “We need a compact energy source,” says Hadfield. “We cannot be relying on the tiny bit of solar power that happens to arrive at that location.”

While the solar energy reaching the surface of Mars is about half that on Earth, this isn’t a show-stopper. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that to power the equivalent of an average US household on Mars, even through dust storms, one would need an array of solar panels totalling six metres square – very achievable.

Reduced gravity: The effects of microgravity on astronauts’ health have been studied for decades, and a range of techniques have been developed to mitigate the wasting effects on muscle and bone.

With Martian gravity around a third of that on Earth, it would take astronauts a couple of days to acclimatise, and perhaps a few months to fully adapt. NASA and ESA have been developing an under-suit that compresses the body to overcome the negative effects of a reduction in pressure and gravity.

However, biological adaption could be made easier if microgravity were avoided altogether. The spacecraft could be spun in-transit to generate an artificial gravity that slowly decayed, simulating a transition from Earth to Mars gravity (and vice versa) over the six-month journey.

Ultimately, until humans are actually living on other planets it’s unlikely we’ll solve or even recognise all the subtle long-term health problems associated with reduced gravity. And who’s to say what the advances in bio-engineering and technology will make the human body capable of when that time comes?

The social hurdles

Life on Mars: If there’s life on Mars, even if it’s microbial, should we be allowed to spread to the planet, potentially risking its extinction? I find this question strange – as Chris McKay put it: “We commit microbial genocide every time we wash our hands”. We engineer and farm the complex life around us as systematically and as cheaply as possible. Billions of people eat the carcasses of organisms that were thinking and breathing only days before. Why, all of a sudden, should Martian microbes be given such sanctity? It should certainly be studied, but it shouldn’t prevent our spreading.

Back contamination: Conversely, the question of whether some Martian plague might accidentally be introduced to Earth should be taken seriously – but not blown out of proportion. There’s only a remote chance that Martian life might be hazardous. The things that kill us do so because they’ve evolved in lock-step with us in a continual evolutionary arms race. Any Martian life will have evolved independently and is unlikely to be capable even of interacting with Earth life on a molecular level. As Robert Zubrin put it: “Trees don’t get colds and humans don’t get Dutch Elm Disease.”

Psychology: Depending on relative orbits, sending a message between Earth and Mars can take between three and 22 minutes. This loss of real-time communication will leave astronauts feeling cut-off and alone. Hadfield says that it’s vital to keep up crew morale and motivation:

Once you get any distance away on any sort of voyage, the epic-ness disappears, the reality becomes the foreground, and the applause is long gone.

Cost: A crewed Mars programme would cost the equivalent of a few weeks of the US defence budget. The US plans on spending about ten times more on nuclear weapons than on space exploration over the coming decade. The UK government spends about as much on gastric band surgery through the NHS as it does on its space activities.

So while a Mars programme certainly has challenges to overcome, the technological gap between us and Mars is far smaller than it was for the Moon programme in the 1960s. And the prospects the Red Planet holds for humanity are far greater.

Ashley Dove-Jay has a PhD in aerospace engineering from the University of Bristol and is a space engineer at Oxford Space Systems with a broad background in the space arena.

Should we go to Mars? | Ashley Dove-Jay | TEDxNTUA

Elon Musk’s Plan To Colonize Mars

Your kids might live on Mars. Here’s how they’ll survive | Stephen Petranek

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

6 COMMENTS

  1. I see that the author has a PhD. Yet, this assertion "With only a relatively small push, Mars could be returned to its former warm, wet, hospitable state." looks to me mind-bogglingly uninformed. Terraforming on planetary scale, while a darling in fiction, will require an amount of energy much larger than what we can produce on Earth. And all that atmosphere will be lost to space not long after.I see that the author has a PhD. Yet, this assertion "With only a relatively small push, Mars could be returned to its former warm, wet, hospitable state." looks to me mind-bogglingly uninformed. Terraforming on planetary scale, while a darling in fiction, will require an amount of energy much larger than what we can produce on Earth. And all that atmosphere will be lost to space not long after.

    The moon has a lot of metals, silicon and oxigen. It appears that it also has plenty of water and hopefully CO2 at the poles.

    The moon is so close we can operate machinery there by remote control from Earth with a total lag of about 3 seconds, which, with semi-clever machines looks very feasible. This will hugely reduce the amount of effort and risk in starting a colony. Good luck talking to Mars when it is at the other side of the solar system.

    The statement "It’s feasible to introduce biological life to Mars, but not the Moon." does not make any sense. Mars is very cold, has a lot of radiation on the surface, and its atmosphere is very thin. It also has toxic soil due to perchlorate. Both the Moon and Mars will sustain only life only in closed environments and then the advantage of the 24 hour day and more water are greatly outweighed by it being so far. Water and carbon can be recycled. Artificial light can be used even to grow crops (Mars's sun is weaker anyway). And the Moon has areas that are almost always in the Sun.

    Our past history with space exploration should be humbling. Even a colony on the Moon will take decades. With Mars, everything being so much harder the timelines are a lot longer.

  2. There is one thing you're missing. There's no reason to establish a colony on the Moon, except, uh, it's the key to the Solar System, including Mars.
    A kilogram of mass in Earth orbit at the Moon's distance has about 60x the energy of a kilogram of mass in low earth orbit, and about 120x the energy of a kilogram of mass on the surface of the Earth. That drops the cost per kilogram to orbit by a factor of about 100. But it's better than that; the engines needed to escape a gravity well (orbit insertion engines) are extremely high-thrust and inefficient; orbit-orbit transfers can use low-thrust, high-Ve, very high efficiency engines. So the actual cost advantage is even higher. For example, an ion thruster has about 10x the Isp of the Merlin engine, VASIMR 40x, and a DS4G electric-ion thruster 70x the Isp of Merlin. Multiply it all out and the energy advantage of launching from the Moon approaches four orders of magnitude.
    Some things (people, other biologicals) will have to come from Earth, of course. But the spacecraft to go to Mars should be built on, and launched from, the Moon.

    • Quite! the race to the moon is not, and never was, an end in itself, but that is why Trump seeks to resurrect the US' race to the moon.

      Why would humanity NOT use its one, conveniently close, natural satellite as a low-grav staging post? As I postulate in my own comment, just now, there are several advantages to doing so:

      Low gravity = low energy requirements for take-off, but also conveniently close orbital stations, as they do not have to remain distant to escape gravitational pull

      Airless = conveniently dust-free for manufacturing in highly sensitive electronics and other materials that require a pristine – or even vacuum – environment

      Unfiltered insolation, 24/7, on the lit side, giving continuous solar PV/thermal energy
      Compete isolation – on the dark side – giving cold conditions – suitable for any low-termp operations – isolated from any inhabited human habitats/domes, for nuclear power generation.

  3. I wish someone would explore faster ways to get to Mars. Zubrin has a plan and I think nuclear powered rockets should not be discouraged. I wish we were there already.

  4. It's a hellhole – toxic dust, inadequate gravity, no atmosphere to speak of and hard radiation day and night. The middle of the Sahara, Antarctica, or the bottom of the Marianas Trench would all be more hospitable.

    If you must live in a gravity well, a cloud city on Venus about 50 km above the surface gets you Earth-normal temperature, pressure, and gravity (almost) plus a nice ionosphere and atmosphere to shield you from radiation. Earth air is as buoyant on Venus as helium is on Earth, so it's easy to just float there. And you can use robots to mine the hellish surface for any ores you may need …

    Of course an O'Neill colony inside 16 Psyche would be a far better place to start. And, yeah, to get there you're probably going to want skyhooks orbiting Luna and maybe the Martian moons too.

  5. The piece misses out a simple truth about the moon…

    'Wouldn’t the Moon, so much nearer than Mars, be a better first step? …."
    … AND…
    "Why the European Space Agency has declared the Moon a stepping-stone to Mars is beyond me, as doing so increases the cost of a Mars programme hugely."

    The piece then goes on to answer its own question, without even realising it…

    "It takes about 50% more energy to put something on the surface of the Moon than it does on Mars. The Martian atmosphere can be used to slow down approaching spacecraft, instead of the need for extra fuel to slow the descent. It would also mean developing two different sets of landing techniques and hardware. There are reasons to go to the Moon, just not if your ultimate destination is Mars."

    It also takes 50% LESS energy to ESCAPE the moon's atmosphere, and so establishing a base and launchpads on the moon gives us the opportunity to establish manufacturing there, using unfiltered, 24/7 solar Photovoltaic-Thermal energy, but also nuclear – conveniently sited on the dark side, without issues about of contaminating any human or natural environment?

    What's more, bringing BACK materials from asteroids or planets/planetoids within reach of lunar OR Mars stations gives us a staging post for that manufacturing, as only the containers need to be landed, while the container ships that tow them to the lunar facility can remain in orbit.

    Three key types of facilities would greatly benefit from bases on the moon:

    1) LOW GRAV LAUNCHING OF NEAR-SPACE PROSPECTING EXTRACTION AND REFINEMENT OPREATIONS – either on-planet/oid or in purpose-built space orbital stations – allowing building refineries/smelters of huge scale, owing to the lack of gravity that facilitates their assembly in space – rather than having to launch them from earth

    2) PACKING AND SHIPPPING BACK FROM LUNAR STATIONS – allowing low-gravity assembly of components and even fully-fledged ships for further mining exploration and operations, as well as passenger ships to Mars, again, exploiting the low-grav launchpads, as well as zero-grav orbital station.

    3) BUILDING FULLY-FLEDGED TERMINALS – serving both, technical operations within the Solar System as well as passengers transfer stations, for onward travel to Mars… and, who knows, one day perhaps it is hoped that other destinations can be colonised, within domed cities, where the diescendants of he rich an powerful can continue to thrive, long after planet Earth has become a desert rock, good only for archaeological study and tourism.

Leave a Reply to Oleg Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here