Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs human space travel to the planet Mars too dangerous?
Results so far:
| No | 63% | 649 votes | Total: 1029 votes | |
| Yes | 37% | 380 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAlthough the concept is now a foreign one; anyone who grew up reading Robert Heinlein wonders why we have not already colonized Mars, and why we are not bickering with these colonies over independence on their 30th anniversary. The truth is that the cold war diverted funds that might have financed our booster rockets and deep space vehicles, and innumerable ill advised social programs have stolen away billions that could have gone into research and development. And let us not forget, the recent collective shaving off of our national chest hairs has made almost any risk unacceptable.
The manned Apollo missions, six in number began in 1969 and ended in 1972. This is in fact the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. These missions are frequently referred to as the greatest technological achievements of all time but they ended a long time ago. It was reasonable to assume that mankind would continue to expand and explore but sadly, this has not been the case. And I believe we are poorer for the omission.
Is a manned flight to Mars a day at the beach? Certainly it is not. The distances are daunting. The travel time is worrisome on many, many levels. The technology required is stunning although no less stunning than that which we are already utilizing in many other fields of human endeavor.
But is it worth the danger? Is it worth an enormous expenditure of the gross national product we no longer have to visit what is quite probably a cold, bleak and lifeless world? Should even one man or woman risk his or her life chasing a dream that could quite possibly be fulfilled by unmanned drones? Many would say no, and say it emphatically.
But I say life is inherently dangerous. The moment the doctor slaps us on the butt we are already dying. We will never have more life ahead of us than we do at the very moment we draw our first breath. It is all downhill from there.
Our lives are fraught with hazards that should cause us to blanch, and yet we do not do so. I am not speaking of the police officer or fireman or United States marine, airman, soldier, sailor or coast guardsman; the risks these heroes face are enormous and self evident.
Do you drive? Then you trust your life to the automobile assembly line. You, for example, trust a brake hose that you have in all likelihood never seen not to burst when you really, really need to stop your vehicle before that tanker truck of unleaded regular toasts your buns into eternity. You believe that stop lights are going to function properly, that tires will maintain their integrity; most inexplicable of all you trust that the fifty thousand wild eyed maniacs sharing the highway with you will behave like rational beings.
Why do you ever get behind the wheel? People die there, by the thousands, every year.
But that's not all.
Did you make it to work? Are you really certain that a chanting fanatic is not going to fly a 747 into your building? That legionnaire's disease doesn't lurk in the ventilating ducts? That the seemingly friendly cafeteria worker isn't concealing a deadly grudge and an Uzi as well? That the hottie in accounting that you are about to hook up with isn't sporting a new and interesting STD that makes aids and necrotizing faciitis combined look like sniffles?
No, you are not sure about any of this. Life is inherently dangerous. Consuming cheeseburgers, bobsledding, horseback riding, skydiving, snow shoveling, sex, drugs, rock and roll, running with scissors; all are potentially lethal activities. And they go on every single day and nobody bats an eye.
How much more so a trip to Mars?
But there are differences. Only the very best, bravest and most highly trained volunteers are in the running to make the trip. Let us emphasize the word, volunteers. These people know what they are getting into, and are on board with the program. They will be supported by some of the finest minds, the best research, the most impressive equipment that mankind can provide. There will be hundreds of thousands of man hours devoted to thinking of every possible life or mission threatening scenario, and then developing programs, procedures and equipment to nullify those threats. Unlike you and I on our daily voyage through life, the crew of the hypothetical Mars vehicle will be safeguarded by the full scientific and intellectual resources of our country.
And how do you feel about good old national pride in achievement? Is that too hokey a concept for this day and age? What about extending the frontiers, scaling new heights, pushing the envelope? Are these concepts no longer rooted in human DNA? I say they are; they are merely lying dormant.
Who can deny the technological advances that accompanied the manned voyages to the moon and so enriched our everyday lives? Would not history repeat itself as we breach the vast barriers of time and distance that ultimately lead to the Martian surface? And would not these new technologies be of enormous benefit to all mankind? What would the future be like as a result?
In my opinion, we should make every effort to place a manned expedition on Mars.
It will not be easy. It will not even be completely safe. But nothing that is worth doing ever is.
Learn more about this author, Mac Pike.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
After the "visit" to the Moon by the first humans of the Apollo spaceship in 1969, the following target for humans seems to be mars, but the first walk of a man on its red surface is programmed, with many uncertainty, for 2025-30 by NASA.
With the technologies available so far, many and enormous are the technical and organization problems still to resolve and these imply also many fatal risks for human crews, firstly, for the very long times required for the journey to Mars, about 2-3 months, minimum and the same to come back.
These long travels are showed to be harmful for astronauts because, living in the space for long periods, their bones and muscles tend to reduce until the atrophy, due to the absence of gravity that justifies their strength and resistance. Also body circulation changes, with a higher blood flux to head and brain, among the various problems. This, despite all the gymnastic that astronauts try to make in the space, as much as possible, to avoid these effects.
Only on Mars itself this absence of gravity would be partially compensated, given that gravity on this planet is 38% of that on the Earth, but a recovery of the lost bone tissue during the long travel could be very slow and not complete.
Another serious problem is the absence of protections from cosmic radiations (that can cause cancer) on Mars surface, due to its much less dense atmosphere (the atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1/100 of that on the Earth) and to the absence of a strong magnetic field able to block and divert the charged particles of cosmic rays and solar wind. So, human body would need particularly strong and resistant protections against such penetrating radiations and our permanence on Mars would be a rather claustrophobic life in bunkers underground, surely, not very attractive for most people.
Also the beginning of the return phase would be particularly delicate and full of risks for the need of enough energy to start from Mars surface and reach the Earth; every technical problem could be impossible to resolve on Mars, especially during the first exploring missions, without a stable and really autonomous human base and, in most cases, it would be fatal.
Now, the additional resources for the return journey could be provided by an automatic spaceship sent on Mars just before the mission with a human crew, loaded with fuel and supplies, but the spaceship with the crew should land on Mars just in the zone where the supplies will have been sent.
The Sun could provide additional energy for various purposes, but the light of our star is weaker on Mars than on the Earth and this decreases the energy available.
Moreover, Mars is swept by long and violent wind storms that would reduce much the solar light reaching the ground where this energy is necessary and this could stop or reduce much many important activities on Mars and also create danger for the spaceships at their landing or departure.
Let's not forget that human beings, just arrived on Mars, will have come after months in the space with the physical problems described above and could have great problems to move and work on Mars, although the gravity over there is the 38% of that on the Earth, with possible stress and accidents. Then, another 2-3 months would be necessary for the return and the total is about 4-6 months, doubling the physical problems and the risks.
This timing would be easily conditioned by the variable distance between Earth and Mars that could increase the journey duration and reduce the favourable times to travel between the two planets. Whatever technical problem delaying the starting of the mission can miss the favourable moment of minimum distance, waited maybe for years. This, would oblige to complete the mission in longer times, for not to wait another minimum distance period after 3 or 5 years.
For these reasons, it would be very important to decrease much the journey times to Mars (only few weeks, for ex,), providing spaceships with much more energy from fuels, always with particular regard for the return. This would increase the technical problems and risks in managing, storing and controlling all this fuel in safety.
At this point, what are the best energy sources for travelling to Mars?
- Nuclear energy? With all its problems of radioactivity and contamination, in case of explosion, leaks and fall of the spaceship just at its launch from the Earth? A space launches base on the Moon would avoid the Earth radioactive contamination, in case of nuclear accident, but not that of the same Moon base, making it unavailable for long periods.
Another problem is that the nuclear engines for spaceships, in any case, would be produced on the Earth and carried to the base on the Moon to be assembled, with the risk of accidents in the critical phase of the launch. Nuclear energy is really the energy of the devil!
- Or hydrogen? To reduce the mission times, enormous amounts of this explosive liquefied gas at absurd temperatures (below -250 C) should be consumed and stored in the spaceship and, of course, on Mars for the return trip). How to carry all this hydrogen previously, always, in the shortest times possible?
All these great technological problems are today unresolved and the needed money investment on the long term is really far beyond our economic possibilities for the great technological improvement still to be achieved and the nearly infinite things that will have to work perfectly to avoid an easy disaster. For these reasons, I think all next missions on Mars should be made only with automatic spaceships, without humans on board.
It will be less "romantic" and "heroic" but, at least, much less expensive, considering that automatic devices don't eat, don't drink, cannot suffer of depression, don't need air to breath and neither some sleep hours to rest and, above all, nobody risks to die.
The automatic programmed machines are the only "slaves" we can exploit without any moral problem toward them; so, these are the only means we have to travel and settle on Mars.
Learn more about this author, Aldo Bonincontro.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
