below you will find all you want to know about Mars. Use the archive links to the right to navigate the different article posts. Enjoy and share the knowledge!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Welcome to our Mars blog!
below you will find all you want to know about Mars. Use the archive links to the right to navigate the different article posts. Enjoy and share the knowledge!
Take our Quiz, please post responses!
Take a turn reading over our quiz and post your answers on our blog. If you need help, look in the articles on this blog!
1. The methane emissions in Mars' atmosphere may be from which of the following:
a. Geological processes
b. Asteroid/Comet impacts
c. Microbial processes
d. Both a and b are possible factors
2. Which of the following are ways water may exist on Mars?
a. Liquid underneath the surface
b. Gas in methane plumes
c. Ice on the surface
d. All of the above
3. What % of bone loss do astronauts experience for every month spent in zero gravity?
A. None
B. 2.5-3.0%
C. 0.1-0.5%
D. 1.0-1.5%
4. What is the term used to describe this phenomena?
th
A. Disuse Osteoporosis
B. Bone Sloughing
C. Calcium Deficiency
D. Skeletal Breakdown
5. Which mission achieved
the first successful orbit of Mars?
A. Marsnik 2
B. Mariner 10
C. Viking
D. Mariner 9
6. Which mission achieved the first successful
Mars landing?
A. Mariner 4
B. Mars 3
C. Mars Pathfinder
D. Viking
7. What country has the potential to begin another space race with the United States?
A. Italy
B. The U.K.
C. China
D. Cuba
8. Which of the following countries is not a key player in the space race today?
A. China
B. U.S.
C. Russia
D. South Africa
9. What are the potential benefits of using the carbon dioxide on Mars in order to create the propellant for the return flight, as opposed to just bringing all the propellant we need from Earth?
10. What are the risk and cost factors of having a two ship Mission, where one crew is stationed on the surface of Mars as one crew remains in its orbit?
11. How much money was spent on the initial 90-day mission?
A. 150 million
B. 750 million
C. 820 million
D. 20 billion
12. When did the rovers finally land on Mars?
A. September, 2002
B. July, 2006
C. December, 2008
D. January, 2004
13. What is the best building material we can readily use to make structures on Mars?
14. How do you get enough fuel to send a ship home from Mars?
1. The methane emissions in Mars' atmosphere may be from which of the following:
a. Geological processes
b. Asteroid/Comet impacts
c. Microbial processes
d. Both a and b are possible factors
2. Which of the following are ways water may exist on Mars?
a. Liquid underneath the surface
b. Gas in methane plumes
c. Ice on the surface
d. All of the above
3. What % of bone loss do astronauts experience for every month spent in zero gravity?
A. None
B. 2.5-3.0%
C. 0.1-0.5%
D. 1.0-1.5%
4. What is the term used to describe this phenomena?
th
A. Disuse Osteoporosis
B. Bone Sloughing
C. Calcium Deficiency
D. Skeletal Breakdown
5. Which mission achieved
the first successful orbit of Mars?
A. Marsnik 2
B. Mariner 10
C. Viking
D. Mariner 9
6. Which mission achieved the first successful
Mars landing?
A. Mariner 4
B. Mars 3
C. Mars Pathfinder
D. Viking
7. What country has the potential to begin another space race with the United States?
A. Italy
B. The U.K.
C. China
D. Cuba
8. Which of the following countries is not a key player in the space race today?
A. China
B. U.S.
C. Russia
D. South Africa
9. What are the potential benefits of using the carbon dioxide on Mars in order to create the propellant for the return flight, as opposed to just bringing all the propellant we need from Earth?
10. What are the risk and cost factors of having a two ship Mission, where one crew is stationed on the surface of Mars as one crew remains in its orbit?
11. How much money was spent on the initial 90-day mission?
A. 150 million
B. 750 million
C. 820 million
D. 20 billion
12. When did the rovers finally land on Mars?
A. September, 2002
B. July, 2006
C. December, 2008
D. January, 2004
13. What is the best building material we can readily use to make structures on Mars?
14. How do you get enough fuel to send a ship home from Mars?
Alternative Transportation Method, By Nate Castner
Mars on a Shoestring” (1)
An alternative to the commonly proposed methods of getting to Mars has been proposed by veteran inventor, Eric Knight. Knight unveiled an idea that would allow human exploration of Mars in only a few years, as opposed to the 10-year timeline proposed by most space authorities. Knight’s idea arose from his dismay of the future retiring of current space shuttles. He wanted to think of a way that would put them to use instead of packing them away in moth balls. The idea is quite simple. Knight proposes launching two space shuttles into Earth’s orbit. Once there, rendezvous and connect the two shuttles together, top to top through the use of a truss. The ends of this truss would be anchored to the base of the orbiters’ payload bays. In the middle of the truss, there would be a propulsion stage with enough capacity to accelerate the whole system to the required speed. Once up to speed, the stage could be detached along with the truss. The two shuttles would separate to a distance of a few hundred feet, but remain connected by a tether cable. There would be a large conduit between the two shuttles that would allow passage of crew members between the two shuttles. The shuttles, once fully separated, would fire thrusters to put the system into a rotating “orbit” to create a comfortable level of gravity for the remainder of the trip.
This idea provides many solutions to many of the problems associated with long distance travel. Having a level of gravity will diminish the effects on the human body in prolonged absences of gravity, such as muscle and bone deterioration. Having a two shuttle system would provide ample living space for the crew while being able to store large quantities of food and equipment. There would also be room for hydroponic gardens, which aside from providing food also help convert carbon dioxide into oxygen for the crew. Granted, usual storage space is lost with “gravity” present, since storage on the ceiling does not work out so well under gravity.
“Space Infrastructure” (2)
Another novel idea to avoid the inefficiencies of chemical propulsion, large amounts of fuel consumed, and the weight associated with the fuels is to set up “pit-stops” in space. The idea is to create a set of man-made space stations on natural celestial bodies, such as asteroids, and set them in orbits that are useful to the route. These space stations would provide human habitat and depot facilities. More importantly, they would contain electromagnetic launchers to rapidly accelerate spacecrafts without the use of conventional fuels or consuming onboard resources. One problem with this idea is that an object in the ideal orbit will have a period of about 26 months, which would represent the time between opportunities for missions to Mars from Earth. However, this technology wouldn’t stop just for missions to Mars. This would provide a sort of network infrastructure to get us to wherever we want to go, time now only being the limiting factor.
(1) http://www.remarkable.com/marsonashoestring.html
(2) http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_078/?searchterm=habitation
An alternative to the commonly proposed methods of getting to Mars has been proposed by veteran inventor, Eric Knight. Knight unveiled an idea that would allow human exploration of Mars in only a few years, as opposed to the 10-year timeline proposed by most space authorities. Knight’s idea arose from his dismay of the future retiring of current space shuttles. He wanted to think of a way that would put them to use instead of packing them away in moth balls. The idea is quite simple. Knight proposes launching two space shuttles into Earth’s orbit. Once there, rendezvous and connect the two shuttles together, top to top through the use of a truss. The ends of this truss would be anchored to the base of the orbiters’ payload bays. In the middle of the truss, there would be a propulsion stage with enough capacity to accelerate the whole system to the required speed. Once up to speed, the stage could be detached along with the truss. The two shuttles would separate to a distance of a few hundred feet, but remain connected by a tether cable. There would be a large conduit between the two shuttles that would allow passage of crew members between the two shuttles. The shuttles, once fully separated, would fire thrusters to put the system into a rotating “orbit” to create a comfortable level of gravity for the remainder of the trip.
This idea provides many solutions to many of the problems associated with long distance travel. Having a level of gravity will diminish the effects on the human body in prolonged absences of gravity, such as muscle and bone deterioration. Having a two shuttle system would provide ample living space for the crew while being able to store large quantities of food and equipment. There would also be room for hydroponic gardens, which aside from providing food also help convert carbon dioxide into oxygen for the crew. Granted, usual storage space is lost with “gravity” present, since storage on the ceiling does not work out so well under gravity.
“Space Infrastructure” (2)
Another novel idea to avoid the inefficiencies of chemical propulsion, large amounts of fuel consumed, and the weight associated with the fuels is to set up “pit-stops” in space. The idea is to create a set of man-made space stations on natural celestial bodies, such as asteroids, and set them in orbits that are useful to the route. These space stations would provide human habitat and depot facilities. More importantly, they would contain electromagnetic launchers to rapidly accelerate spacecrafts without the use of conventional fuels or consuming onboard resources. One problem with this idea is that an object in the ideal orbit will have a period of about 26 months, which would represent the time between opportunities for missions to Mars from Earth. However, this technology wouldn’t stop just for missions to Mars. This would provide a sort of network infrastructure to get us to wherever we want to go, time now only being the limiting factor.
(1) http://www.remarkable.com/marsonashoestring.html
(2) http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_078/?searchterm=habitation
Mars Exploration Program, by Chris DiMeo
In 2003, two Mars Exploration Rovers launched towards Mars. These exploration rovers, aptly named Spirit and Opportunity, were part of a larger program called the Mars Exploration Program. This NASA program has sent three rovers to Mars including the two Viking landers in 1976 and the Pathfinder in 1997. One of the main goals of this project has been to explore the martian landscape and find clues that could lead to past water activity on Mars. Although the past Viking and Pathfinder rovers have made significant headway in this process, the Spirit and Opportunity Rovers are clearly the most advanced and capable rovers to accomplish this goal.
Significant research, preparation, and funds went into the construction and launch of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. The estimated cost of building, launching and landing the rovers on Mars was $820 million for the initial mission, not to mention the years of planning and research that was part of the process. The rovers were built with solar panels as well as a battery in order to keep running. They are 5 feet tall, 7 and a half feet wide, about 5 feet long and weigh almost 400 pounds. Due to the large dimensions of the rovers, they cannot move at a very high speed. At maximum speed, the rovers move about 2 inches per second. However, about every 10 to 20 seconds they have to stop and reassess their position so it takes a significant amount of time to get from one place to another.
Rover Dimensions Diagram
Scientists spent years planning out exactly how the rovers would make there way to and land on Mars in the safest way possible. The actual landing on the surface was one of the most complicated parts of the plan. A parachute that had 48 suspension lines and has a load of 85 kilonewtons (when fully inflated) was designed to ease the rover’s descent onto the surface. Retrorockets were also used to guide the rover onto the surface. These rockets were necessary due to the fact that the parachute alone could not bring the rovers to a slow enough landing speed. After all of these crucial calculations were solved, the rovers were finally set to launch in the summer of 2003.
Spirit and Opportunity launched towards Mars on June 10 and July 7,respectively. These rovers landed on Mars in January of 2004 and began the large tasks that lay ahead of them. Beginning on opposite sides of Mars in areas where water was theorized to have been in the past, the first objective was to take detailed pictures of the surface. Spirit and Opportunity took panoramic images that allowed scientists on Earth to decide where to go next with the mission. The Rovers then visited various sites and performed geological investigations. They have a highly complex movable arm and an array of tools ranging from X-Ray spectrometers to microscopic imagers. This technology has lead to numerous geological findings. In March of 2004 the Spirit rover found traces of water history in a rock called “Humphrey”. Opportunity found rocks with the same water-like qualities on the other side of the planet. These findings hve led researchers to believe that there definitely was once running water on Mars. This observation, in turn, has led many to consider the possibility that there once could have been life on Mars. The original plan was for the rovers to be on Mars for only 90 days, but the rovers have now been on Mars for 5 years and are still running. They have received a mission extension that should let them run through 2009. Due to the great success of the Mars Exploration Program, scientists are working on a project called the MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) spacecraft, which will study the atmosphere of Mars. These Martian exploration projects help us to observe Mars and study the possibility of past life on the red planet.
Also, my sources used were Wikipedia, www.nasa.gov,
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/home/index.html
http://hobbiton.thisside.net/rovermanual/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/NASA-039-s-Next-Mission-On-Mars-Will-Be-MAVEN-93724.shtml
Habitation and Manned Missions, By John Daugherty
After browsing the web on this topic I stumbled upon a book by Robert Zubrin called The Case for Mars. I have decided to use this book as my guiding light while discussing this topic because after reading his plan, I have become convinced we can live on Mars. There is a “low budget” plan to get to the red planet outlined by Zubrin called Mars Direct. This plan takes advantage of a principle not yet used in space travel: living off the land. The Mars Direct plan will send chemical plants ahead of any manned missions to Mars and have the small probes churn out fuel for the manned mission’s return home as well as the exploration vehicles that will follow. This approach saves a tremendous amount of cost (it's expensive to lift the tremendous weight of fuel into orbit and then to Mars) in the mission, bringing down the price tag from $400 billion in the famous 40 day plan to something around $30-50 billion.
Once there are resources available, the Mars exploration team will be sent to the red planet in search of answers to the most important questions we have: has life existed on Mars? can life exist once again? The unmanned gas harvesting probes and the manned missions will alternate, giving us multiple small bases on the Martian surface. Each of these manned bases will have living quarters that will sustain astronauts for the 18 months it takes for Mars to align with Earth for the shortest possible travel time between the two. With each base there will also be a vehicle that will allow humans to travel long distances on the surface, looking for a key ingredient for life: water.
Eventually, one of the manned frontier bases will be chosen for a long term habitat on Mars. All flights from that point after will be routed to that location, and a base of multiple habitation units will be constructed. To turn the base into a permanent Martian settlement, we must again use a live off the land approach and construct buildings with available materials. Bruce MacKenzie published a series of papers outlying a method to build structures on Mars with a low-tech concept of brick. The probes on Mars have already identified the soil contents of the Marian dust to be feasible for constructing brick. Brick buildings with Roman-style vaulted ceilings with 2.5 meters of dirt on top could be pressurized to habitable gas levels. Other advantages to these structures include decreased cosmic rays (thick, solid ceiling) and great insulation.
Once we have some pressurized space, the plan outlined by Zubrin calls for geodesic domes made from materials like Plexiglas and Kevlar to increase the amount of living space in our permanent home on Mars. There is still a debate on what the best type of dome would be; suffice it to say the math outlined in the book points to the conclusion that a very feasible amount of safe living space could be sent from earth with relative simplicity.
The book goes into making plastics, glass, ceramics, getting water, building green houses, farming crops, manufacturing steel, refining silicon, using solar, geothermal, and wind power to augment and replace the nuclear reactors that powered the beginnings of the program, and eventually grow a small base into a colony for humankind. I hope you use this post as impetus to go out and read this adventure-inspiring book.
-friendly blog master.
References:
-Zubrin, Robert-The Free Press-The Case for Mars: The Plan to settle the Red Planet and why we must; 1996
-Wikipedia
-http://www.redplanethost.com/images/bak/Red%20Planet.jpg
-http://www.eyalyurconi.com/yurconi/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/the-case-for-mars.jpg
-http://www.geocities.com/marsterraforming/miss_seq.jpg
Once there are resources available, the Mars exploration team will be sent to the red planet in search of answers to the most important questions we have: has life existed on Mars? can life exist once again? The unmanned gas harvesting probes and the manned missions will alternate, giving us multiple small bases on the Martian surface. Each of these manned bases will have living quarters that will sustain astronauts for the 18 months it takes for Mars to align with Earth for the shortest possible travel time between the two. With each base there will also be a vehicle that will allow humans to travel long distances on the surface, looking for a key ingredient for life: water.
Eventually, one of the manned frontier bases will be chosen for a long term habitat on Mars. All flights from that point after will be routed to that location, and a base of multiple habitation units will be constructed. To turn the base into a permanent Martian settlement, we must again use a live off the land approach and construct buildings with available materials. Bruce MacKenzie published a series of papers outlying a method to build structures on Mars with a low-tech concept of brick. The probes on Mars have already identified the soil contents of the Marian dust to be feasible for constructing brick. Brick buildings with Roman-style vaulted ceilings with 2.5 meters of dirt on top could be pressurized to habitable gas levels. Other advantages to these structures include decreased cosmic rays (thick, solid ceiling) and great insulation.
Once we have some pressurized space, the plan outlined by Zubrin calls for geodesic domes made from materials like Plexiglas and Kevlar to increase the amount of living space in our permanent home on Mars. There is still a debate on what the best type of dome would be; suffice it to say the math outlined in the book points to the conclusion that a very feasible amount of safe living space could be sent from earth with relative simplicity.
The book goes into making plastics, glass, ceramics, getting water, building green houses, farming crops, manufacturing steel, refining silicon, using solar, geothermal, and wind power to augment and replace the nuclear reactors that powered the beginnings of the program, and eventually grow a small base into a colony for humankind. I hope you use this post as impetus to go out and read this adventure-inspiring book.
-friendly blog master.
References:
-Zubrin, Robert-The Free Press-The Case for Mars: The Plan to settle the Red Planet and why we must; 1996
-Wikipedia
-http://www.redplanethost.com/images/bak/Red%20Planet.jpg
-http://www.eyalyurconi.com/yurconi/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/the-case-for-mars.jpg
-http://www.geocities.com/marsterraforming/miss_seq.jpg
Mars Direct-A Cost Effective Proposal, by Brandon Cratty
My job for the project was to research how such a large intergovernmental project would be financed. Since the end of the Second World War, there have been numerous proposals for manned missions to Mars, each with widely varying concepts and budget proposals. One such mission, named Mars Direct, is a cost effective proposal put forth by Robert Zubrin and David Baker in their series of conferences at the University of Boulder Colorado. Since NASA has taken Mars Direct into consideration as a possible mission model, I thought I would talk briefly about a predecessor proposal named SEI and its failings and lead that into the Mars Direct Mission and how it offers a cheaper, safer, and quicker alternative to some of the 100 billion dollar Mars Orbiting missions proposed by NASA.
In July of 1989 then President George H.W Bush announced a prolonged plan deemed the Space Exploration Initiative. The project, which would have comprised of building Space Station Freedom, a Lunar Base, and sending a manned mission to Mars, would surely have been a monumental task. It would have required permanently manned space stations on both the moon and the Earth’s orbit, a complete revolution in the size, construction and function of spacecraft, and not to mention lots and lots of money.
Unfortunately, President Bush was at the time unaware of the cost estimates of such an endeavor before he announced SEI’s plans to the public. In August of 1990, after hearing NASA’s estimated 400 billion dollar price tag over three decades, Bush established a committee to encourage NASA to focus mainly on Earth Science. In 1996, SEI was scrapped altogether in the Clinton Administration’s National Space Policy and Space Exploration was officially removed from the National Agenda.
In the same year, a series of conferences at the University of Boulder Colorado between 1981 and 1996 and was condensed into a book by Robert Zubrin, called The Case for Mars. The book advocates for return to the days of frontier exploration being at the top of the agenda. He recalls the adventures of Lewis and Clark and Roald Amundsen, the first man to reach the North and South poles, and that the key ingredient in groundbreaking expeditions is the fact that these explorers thrived and survived by “Living off the Land”. This is what Zubrin believes to be the essential tactic if we are to ever successfully explore and colonize Mars. He says that it would have been completely irrational unfeasible for Lewis and Clark to bring along all of their necessary food and supplies for their three year trip across the continent. And that Sir John Franklin, an explorer and idol to his successor Amundsen, failed in his attempt to traverse the Northwest Passage because he brought with him a huge ship stocked with an abundance of unnecessary supplies. Zubrin asserts that in the entire history of Frontier exploration, it has always been large party, large budget expeditions that fail, and the small crew, small budget survivalist groups that continually succeed. He argues that space should be no different, and that programs like SEI will always be doomed to fail.
The spacecrafts used to get to Mars would be non orbiting, and as self-sufficient as possible. The first shuttle to be launched roughly two years before the manned launch, would be called the "Earth Return Vehicle", or (ERV) and would be sent directly from Earth's surface to Mars using essentially the same technology that is used today in the
The crew would consist of four, and as Zubrin puts it; “true renaissance men and women.” They would comprise of two field scientists, a biogeochemist and a geologist and two mechanics. The primary flight engineer should be a “Jack-of-all-trades”, able to help all other crew members with their daily tasks, as well as being the flight commander. In all each, crew member should be competent in as both active field scientists and mechanical engineers.
The ERV would carry only a supply of hydrogen, and a chemical and nuclear reaction plant to produce methane and oxygen for the return flight home for both the ERV and the second ship. The second ship would be called the "Mars Habitat Unit" (MHU) and would bring a crew of four to the surface of Mars. Due to the effects of prolonged exposure to zero gravity, this ship would have the habitat unit would set on a rotating axis in order to create artificial gravity for the astronauts. The MHU also includes a small, pressurized land rover that would be assembled on the surface of Mars in order to save space on the ship. The rover would be powered by the methane produced by the ERV Powered by a small methane engine, and would be used primarily to explore the regions around the base.
Because of the limited amount of spacecraft and flight crew, Zubrin estimated that the initial mission with the two spacecraft and crew would cost about 55 billion dollars, only an eighth of the cost of the SEI proposal, and with each successor mission costing less as the technology improved. Overall, Mars Direct offers a cheap and relatively safe way for mankind’s exploration of Mars to continue.
References
Zubrin, Robert-The Free Press-The Case for Mars: The Plan to settle the Red Planet and why we must; 1996
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html
http://chapters.marssociety.org/toronto/Education/MarsDirect.shtml
In July of 1989 then President George H.W Bush announced a prolonged plan deemed the Space Exploration Initiative. The project, which would have comprised of building Space Station Freedom, a Lunar Base, and sending a manned mission to Mars, would surely have been a monumental task. It would have required permanently manned space stations on both the moon and the Earth’s orbit, a complete revolution in the size, construction and function of spacecraft, and not to mention lots and lots of money.
Unfortunately, President Bush was at the time unaware of the cost estimates of such an endeavor before he announced SEI’s plans to the public. In August of 1990, after hearing NASA’s estimated 400 billion dollar price tag over three decades, Bush established a committee to encourage NASA to focus mainly on Earth Science. In 1996, SEI was scrapped altogether in the Clinton Administration’s National Space Policy and Space Exploration was officially removed from the National Agenda.
In the same year, a series of conferences at the University of Boulder Colorado between 1981 and 1996 and was condensed into a book by Robert Zubrin, called The Case for Mars. The book advocates for return to the days of frontier exploration being at the top of the agenda. He recalls the adventures of Lewis and Clark and Roald Amundsen, the first man to reach the North and South poles, and that the key ingredient in groundbreaking expeditions is the fact that these explorers thrived and survived by “Living off the Land”. This is what Zubrin believes to be the essential tactic if we are to ever successfully explore and colonize Mars. He says that it would have been completely irrational unfeasible for Lewis and Clark to bring along all of their necessary food and supplies for their three year trip across the continent. And that Sir John Franklin, an explorer and idol to his successor Amundsen, failed in his attempt to traverse the Northwest Passage because he brought with him a huge ship stocked with an abundance of unnecessary supplies. Zubrin asserts that in the entire history of Frontier exploration, it has always been large party, large budget expeditions that fail, and the small crew, small budget survivalist groups that continually succeed. He argues that space should be no different, and that programs like SEI will always be doomed to fail.
The spacecrafts used to get to Mars would be non orbiting, and as self-sufficient as possible. The first shuttle to be launched roughly two years before the manned launch, would be called the "Earth Return Vehicle", or (ERV) and would be sent directly from Earth's surface to Mars using essentially the same technology that is used today in the
The crew would consist of four, and as Zubrin puts it; “true renaissance men and women.” They would comprise of two field scientists, a biogeochemist and a geologist and two mechanics. The primary flight engineer should be a “Jack-of-all-trades”, able to help all other crew members with their daily tasks, as well as being the flight commander. In all each, crew member should be competent in as both active field scientists and mechanical engineers.
The ERV would carry only a supply of hydrogen, and a chemical and nuclear reaction plant to produce methane and oxygen for the return flight home for both the ERV and the second ship. The second ship would be called the "Mars Habitat Unit" (MHU) and would bring a crew of four to the surface of Mars. Due to the effects of prolonged exposure to zero gravity, this ship would have the habitat unit would set on a rotating axis in order to create artificial gravity for the astronauts. The MHU also includes a small, pressurized land rover that would be assembled on the surface of Mars in order to save space on the ship. The rover would be powered by the methane produced by the ERV Powered by a small methane engine, and would be used primarily to explore the regions around the base.
Because of the limited amount of spacecraft and flight crew, Zubrin estimated that the initial mission with the two spacecraft and crew would cost about 55 billion dollars, only an eighth of the cost of the SEI proposal, and with each successor mission costing less as the technology improved. Overall, Mars Direct offers a cheap and relatively safe way for mankind’s exploration of Mars to continue.
References
Zubrin, Robert-The Free Press-The Case for Mars: The Plan to settle the Red Planet and why we must; 1996
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/mars_worldbook.html
http://chapters.marssociety.org/toronto/Education/MarsDirect.shtml
The Space Race Part II? By Meagan Ledlow
The historical space race that occurred between the US and Russia during the cold war is clearly over, and cooperation seems to be the normal interaction among space programs today. However, with so much of that race having been ignited by the struggle to be the first to the moon, it is more than reasonable to worry if that trend will repeat itself with a race to the planet Mars. Everyone from Europe, India, Japan, and Australia to the three key players in space travel today, the United States, Russia, and up-and-coming China have space programs budding and eyes turned to Mars. Though their progress differs, all have studied Mars and possible travel to it.
The current state of European peace is providing a golden opportunity to focus on global scientific endeavors. Russia has announced a very ambitious plan of space exploration in years to come. It involves permanent habitation of the moon followed shortly by travel to Mars. Both India and China are in the throes of an unmanned lunar mission, and have research devoted to following it up with manned missions to both the moon and Mars.
Cold hostility towards the Chinese by the United States has forced their program to go the space race alone. In the same trend, the Soviet Union experienced a brief deceleration in its progress at the end of the Cold War. Because of the capitalist- communist conflict, much of the world is unwilling to share information or aide with the Chinese. To this day, the two share little direct contact at all, and have only collaborated to share information when it is on global rather than two-party terms. Fears are raging in the Western world that with new military-run operations by the Chinese in space that the next war of global proportions could take place not on the globe at all, but instead in the skies above it. This seems to be just another familiar piece in the puzzle of a race to space.
The good news is that despite much rivalry and competition, the similar interests of a diverse range of nations provide an ideal opportunity for cooperation and partnership. Evidence of this has already been seen in many programs such as the international space station as well as the possibility as an international human home on the moon. All in all, amazing steps are being taken towards an international home outside Earth’s atmosphere.
References
http://planetbye.blogspot.com/2009/03/mars-travel-preparations-in-russia.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3550741&page=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4208176.stm
Past Exploration of the Red Planet, by Sean Madden
When people talk about the space race of the late 1950s and 1960s, most people assume that this refers to Americans and Soviets both seeking to explore the Moon. Surprisingly, space missions to Mars have been attempted since 1960, although there were many failures before the success of the American satellite Mariner 4 in 1964. It also may be surprising to hear that the first six missions weren’t even affiliated with the U.S.—instead they were Soviet spacecraft. Despite the advancement in technology and goals of missions to Mars over the last 50 years or so, there still has yet to be a manned mission to the red planet.
In October of 1960, the Soviets began the Marsnik program with the goal of having a spacecraft study the space between Earth and Mars, study Mars itself and return images via a flyby. Unfortunately, both the Marsnik 1 and Marsnik 2 failed to make it to Earth’s orbit. The Soviets didn’t have much more success with missions to Mars later in 1962 or 1964 with the beginning of the Zond program. Despite the lack of successful missions, the USSR wasn’t deterred and actually, before any success with flyby missions to Mars, they attempted to land a spaceship on Mars in late 1962-early 1963. The Sputnik 24 only made it to Earth’s orbit and then broke apart as it attempted to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere. Overall, it is important to note that there is slight uncertainty with the information about the former Soviet spacecraft because of course, this was the space race during the Cold War and some information from that time period can be nebulous.
The US involvement with Mars began with the very successful Mariner program that spawned a total of six missions to Mars yielding the first successful flyby of Mars and the first successful orbit of the nearby planet. Between 1962 and 1973, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory built 10 Mariner spacecraft to explore the inner solar system. The first two launches in the program related to Mars were two identical spacecraft, Mariner 3 and Mariner 4, that were designed to be the first satellites to fly by Mars and take pictures of its surface. Mariner 3 failed in its mission to get to Mars, but Mariner 4 was successful in being the first object to complete a flyby of Mars and collect close-up photographs of Mars. This is pretty remarkable considering that we wouldn’t even land on the moon for four more years. Mariner 6 and Mariner 7 were launched in February and March of 1969. They were able to analyze the atmosphere and surface of Mars using sensors and relayed hundreds of pictures back to Earth. These missions were also important in debunking the myth that Mars contained canals as was believed for much of the 1800s. The final two missions to Mars in the Mariner program were launched in May 1971 and while Mariner 8 failed to launch, Mariner 9 succeeded in functioning in Mars’ orbit for nearly a year. The latter spacecraft completely revised the perception of Mars by revealing enormous volcanoes, canyons and evidence of ancient riverbeds. It was able to photomap 100% of the planet’s surface and achieve the first close-up pictures of Mars’ two moons—Phobos and Deimos. The timing of these accomplishments was impeccable, because not even a month later, the Soviet Mars program achieved a successful orbit of Mars.
The Soviet Mars and Phobos programs were marked with mostly failure, but achieved a lot of success especially with the Mars 3 mission. After the failure of the first two Mars missions, Mars 3 was successful in being the first Soviet craft to gather data in Mars’ orbit and the first mission to successfully land on the Martian surface. The orbiter sent back about eight months of data from December 1971 to August 1972 about things ranging from the topography of the surface to Mars’ gravity. The lander was not so successful and only transmitted about 15-20 seconds of data. The Mars program did have four more missions (Mars 4-7), but these had very minor impact in advancing our knowledge about the red planet. The following Phobos program produced two missions toward the end of the USSR in 1988. They were intended to observe Mars as well as its moon Phobos, but were mostly unsuccessful missions.
On the American side, the Viking program produced arguably the greatest success of any missions to Mars to date. The two missions had vehicles that were composed of two main parts, an orbiter and a lander. They were launched successively in August and September of 1975 and arriving at Mars in June and August of the following year. In addition to performing their own scientific experiments, the orbiters helped to communicate with the landers and locate good landing sites. One of the main scientific objectives of the missions was to perform biological experiments to see if any signs of life existed in the soil of Mars. Although there is still some ongoing debate, the general agreement is that the results showed no evidence of microbial life on Mars.
In the post-Cold War era, the push for missions to Mars has remained strong with the U.S. leading the way. Although other nations like the U.K., Japan and Russia have attempted missions, the only real success came with the Mars Global Surveyor and the Mars Pathfinder. The Mars Global Surveyor marked the U.S. return to Mars after a long absence and was launched in November 1996. Among other things, probably the mission’s greatest contribution was photos of craters that appear to the presence of water at some point on Mars. The Mars Pathfinder was launched in December 1996 and was intended to analyze the environment of Mars. It was significant in being the first of a number of missions to Mars that included rovers that could better analyze the surface of Mars. Another important aspect of this mission was to prove that NASA could engage in low-cost practices. Although NASA at times has had struggles with its budget, it has produced a number of successful missions with more missions set to launch in the near future. Today, the U.S. has many ongoing missions to Mars including the Spirit and Opportunity rovers that have far surpassed expectations.
The actual “getting” to Mars: A survey of Propulsion techniques, by Charles Stone
Before going to Mars, however we have to consider the actual propulsion techniques available to humans for travel. Certain types of propulsion are more readily available while others are far off. Each of these has benefits but we will have to be careful in choosing the one that will get us the over 78 million kilometers to Mars (1).
(The old space shuttle) (2)
The Old Stand-by
There is of course the existing material that we have: chemical propulsion. Under this method the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen creates heat which then pushes gas out the rocket nozzle otherwise known as thrust (3) Chemical rocket engines are readily available meaning if we wanted to leave now, we use them. The only problem with this method of propulsion is its speed and weight. There are simply too many limitations which we have discovered with chemical engines (although for many of these other technologies, we don’t as yet know their limitations). In the chemical-rocket situation it’s a simple question of specific impulse (Isp), weight, and thrust to weight ratio(4). Isp is a ratio between thrust and the weight consumption rate of propellant which boils down to how long the engine will provide force to gain a certain momentum (5). In chemical rockets this is unfortunately short lasting perhaps 500s. Thankfully, the thrust to weight ratio is high at 50-75 so we got around the short Isp by using stages and jettisoning the useless empty stages (6). That may seem like a lot of technical-language but it simply means that chemical rockets need a lot of fuel to change momentum at all. This seems slightly unfeasible however, for a long trip in which you would still rely on these short burn, heavy, and jettisoning rockets. The prediction is that under this system it would take six months to reach Mars and it would have to wait 18 months until the return six months journey could be made. That would be a 2.5 year round trip (7).
(8)
Nuclear Propulsion
Research into this technology was first pioneered during the Cold War by both the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union (9). The first way a nuclear propulsion engine would work is to have a reactor with a solid core generating heat. This heat is then radiated to a separate gas propellant which when heated ionizes. When this ionized gas is pushed out of a magnetic nozzle, we achieve forward thrust (10). The other method uses a gas core which is radiated through a tube to heat the gas surrounding it to an even higher temperature (11). The Isp on a solid core Nuclear propulsion system is 1000s (12). The thrust to weight ratio is also 1-20 meaning we can go farther, faster, with much less fuel (13). In comparison to chemical rockets they take a lot less fuel to change the momentum and thus it is a more efficient way to travel. The nuclear propulsion does have one major setback: launching a nuclear rocket in earth orbit is probably not the best thing for the people down below (14).
(solar sail concept) (15)
Forget the Engines: Solar Sails
Of course, if conventional and pseudo-conventional (nuclear power) rockets are too tough why not just get rid of them altogether? Solar sails attempt to do that. The concept is actually much older then many would believe. During his observations of a comet, Johannes Kepler believed that what was moving the comet was actually solar winds and hypothesized that the best way for humans to move through space would be to do likewise (16). Kepler had the wrong source but the right idea and today there have been several developments in solar sails which are powered by light itself (17). Modern solar sails use a very thing sheet of aluminum reinforced Mylar to reflect photons as they hit the sail (18). The photons released by the sun push the sail forward as they strike it and reflect back (19). The solar sail powered ship would eventually reach 56 mi/sec (200,000 mph) or 10 times faster then the Space Shuttle’s orbital velocity (20). The only problems with solar sails are that you have to use conventional rockets to get them into space and that little word: eventually. Acceleration at the beginning of the trip is very slow so it might not be best for a mission to Mars (21). Regardless, the technology is already being used for deep-space missions, by Japan as of 2004, and by NASA with its nano-sail as of last summer which eventually failed but still proved the concept (22).
(concept of mag-beam propulsion)(23)
The Round Trip in 90 days on plasma
The Magnetized-beam plasma propulsion system is a new idea from the University of Washington’s professor Robert Winglee (24). Basically it places a space station above earth which generates plasma, magnetizes it, and then has it interact with a ship with magnetized sails pushing it forward(25). The larger the nozzle for the ions the greater the thrust and Winglee believes one 32 meters wide could propel a craft at 11.7 km/s (26,000 mph) (26). This is slower then the top speed of the solar sail but then again it will go at this speed throughout most of the journey. Under this speed it would take 76 days to get to Mars but they believe by increasing the stream of plasma they can bring that down to a 90 day round trip (27). The problem is this is still very experimental and the ship itself wouldn’t carry much in the way of propulsion itself so it would need another such station around Mars to slow it down and pinpoint accuracy to put it inline with that station (28).
(concept of anti-matter to matter collision propelled spaceship) (29)
Enterprise, do you read me?
Yes, there is always the sci-fi favorite anti-matter. Anti-matter is what it says it is, the opposite of matter. When the two are forced together, they annihilate each other and create a massive amount of energy (30). Such spaceships using an idea similar to that of Nuclear propulsion, according to a Penn State research team, would have an Isp of 100,000-1,000,000 seconds (31). Anti-matter would be an incredibly efficient way to explore space except for one glaring problem: anti-matter. It seems we just don’t have enough and it is really expensive at 62.5 trillion dollars a gram (32).
So how are we getting there?
What is the best way to Mars, and the corollary, what is the fastest and most efficient? In this writer’s opinion, chemical propulsion is too ineffective for long range transportation. It is still perhaps the best way to get into orbit (not due to effectiveness but more so due to the lack of extremely volatile or radioactive byproducts), but not to get to Mars. Solar sails are perhaps the most efficient but they take too long to reach their max speed. The technologies which seem most viable at this point are further developments in nuclear propulsion and magnetized-beam plasma propulsion.
Endnotes
(1) J. Bennett, M. Donahue, N. Schneider, and Mark Voit, The Solar System, (San Fransisco: Pearson Education), A-15.
(2) “Space Shuttle: Image Gallery,” NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts125/multimedia/gallery/gallery-index.html, 04/07/2009.
(3) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(4) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(5) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(6) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(7) Behar, Michael, “5 ways to get to Mars” Wired: Issue 12.12, December 2004, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/mars.html, 04/07/2009.
(8) Babula, Maria, “Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion,” Space Propulsion and Mission Analysis Office, NASA, http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/projects/ntp/, 04/07/2009.
(9) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(10) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(11) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(12) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(13) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(14) Behar, Michael, “5 ways to get to Mars” Wired: Issue 12.12, December 2004, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/mars.html, 04/07/2009.
(15) Coulter, Dauna, “A Brief History of Solar Sails” Science@NASA, NASA, 07/31/2008, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/31jul_solarsails.htm, 04/07/2009.
(16) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 2.
(17) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 2.
(18) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 3.
(19) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 3.
(20) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 5.
(21) “Solar Sails,” BBC Science and Nature: Space, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/exploration/futurespaceflight/solarsails.shtml, 04/07/2009.
(22) Coulter, Dauna, “A Brief History of Solar Sails” Science@NASA, NASA, 07/31/2008, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/31jul_solarsails.htm, 04/07/2009.
(23) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(24) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(25) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(26) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(27) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(28) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(29) Dooling, Dave, “Reaching for the stars: Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft,” Science@NASA, NASA, 04/12/1999, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
(30) Dooling, Dave, “When Isaac met Albert,” NASA: Marshall Space Flight Center, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad12nov97_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
(31) Dooling, Dave, “Reaching for the stars: Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft,” Science@NASA, NASA, 04/12/1999, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
(32) Dooling, Dave, “Reaching for the stars: Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft,” Science@NASA, NASA, 04/12/1999, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
Before going to Mars, however we have to consider the actual propulsion techniques available to humans for travel. Certain types of propulsion are more readily available while others are far off. Each of these has benefits but we will have to be careful in choosing the one that will get us the over 78 million kilometers to Mars (1).
(The old space shuttle) (2)
The Old Stand-by
There is of course the existing material that we have: chemical propulsion. Under this method the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen creates heat which then pushes gas out the rocket nozzle otherwise known as thrust (3) Chemical rocket engines are readily available meaning if we wanted to leave now, we use them. The only problem with this method of propulsion is its speed and weight. There are simply too many limitations which we have discovered with chemical engines (although for many of these other technologies, we don’t as yet know their limitations). In the chemical-rocket situation it’s a simple question of specific impulse (Isp), weight, and thrust to weight ratio(4). Isp is a ratio between thrust and the weight consumption rate of propellant which boils down to how long the engine will provide force to gain a certain momentum (5). In chemical rockets this is unfortunately short lasting perhaps 500s. Thankfully, the thrust to weight ratio is high at 50-75 so we got around the short Isp by using stages and jettisoning the useless empty stages (6). That may seem like a lot of technical-language but it simply means that chemical rockets need a lot of fuel to change momentum at all. This seems slightly unfeasible however, for a long trip in which you would still rely on these short burn, heavy, and jettisoning rockets. The prediction is that under this system it would take six months to reach Mars and it would have to wait 18 months until the return six months journey could be made. That would be a 2.5 year round trip (7).
(8)
Nuclear Propulsion
Research into this technology was first pioneered during the Cold War by both the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union (9). The first way a nuclear propulsion engine would work is to have a reactor with a solid core generating heat. This heat is then radiated to a separate gas propellant which when heated ionizes. When this ionized gas is pushed out of a magnetic nozzle, we achieve forward thrust (10). The other method uses a gas core which is radiated through a tube to heat the gas surrounding it to an even higher temperature (11). The Isp on a solid core Nuclear propulsion system is 1000s (12). The thrust to weight ratio is also 1-20 meaning we can go farther, faster, with much less fuel (13). In comparison to chemical rockets they take a lot less fuel to change the momentum and thus it is a more efficient way to travel. The nuclear propulsion does have one major setback: launching a nuclear rocket in earth orbit is probably not the best thing for the people down below (14).
(solar sail concept) (15)
Forget the Engines: Solar Sails
Of course, if conventional and pseudo-conventional (nuclear power) rockets are too tough why not just get rid of them altogether? Solar sails attempt to do that. The concept is actually much older then many would believe. During his observations of a comet, Johannes Kepler believed that what was moving the comet was actually solar winds and hypothesized that the best way for humans to move through space would be to do likewise (16). Kepler had the wrong source but the right idea and today there have been several developments in solar sails which are powered by light itself (17). Modern solar sails use a very thing sheet of aluminum reinforced Mylar to reflect photons as they hit the sail (18). The photons released by the sun push the sail forward as they strike it and reflect back (19). The solar sail powered ship would eventually reach 56 mi/sec (200,000 mph) or 10 times faster then the Space Shuttle’s orbital velocity (20). The only problems with solar sails are that you have to use conventional rockets to get them into space and that little word: eventually. Acceleration at the beginning of the trip is very slow so it might not be best for a mission to Mars (21). Regardless, the technology is already being used for deep-space missions, by Japan as of 2004, and by NASA with its nano-sail as of last summer which eventually failed but still proved the concept (22).
(concept of mag-beam propulsion)(23)
The Round Trip in 90 days on plasma
The Magnetized-beam plasma propulsion system is a new idea from the University of Washington’s professor Robert Winglee (24). Basically it places a space station above earth which generates plasma, magnetizes it, and then has it interact with a ship with magnetized sails pushing it forward(25). The larger the nozzle for the ions the greater the thrust and Winglee believes one 32 meters wide could propel a craft at 11.7 km/s (26,000 mph) (26). This is slower then the top speed of the solar sail but then again it will go at this speed throughout most of the journey. Under this speed it would take 76 days to get to Mars but they believe by increasing the stream of plasma they can bring that down to a 90 day round trip (27). The problem is this is still very experimental and the ship itself wouldn’t carry much in the way of propulsion itself so it would need another such station around Mars to slow it down and pinpoint accuracy to put it inline with that station (28).
(concept of anti-matter to matter collision propelled spaceship) (29)
Enterprise, do you read me?
Yes, there is always the sci-fi favorite anti-matter. Anti-matter is what it says it is, the opposite of matter. When the two are forced together, they annihilate each other and create a massive amount of energy (30). Such spaceships using an idea similar to that of Nuclear propulsion, according to a Penn State research team, would have an Isp of 100,000-1,000,000 seconds (31). Anti-matter would be an incredibly efficient way to explore space except for one glaring problem: anti-matter. It seems we just don’t have enough and it is really expensive at 62.5 trillion dollars a gram (32).
So how are we getting there?
What is the best way to Mars, and the corollary, what is the fastest and most efficient? In this writer’s opinion, chemical propulsion is too ineffective for long range transportation. It is still perhaps the best way to get into orbit (not due to effectiveness but more so due to the lack of extremely volatile or radioactive byproducts), but not to get to Mars. Solar sails are perhaps the most efficient but they take too long to reach their max speed. The technologies which seem most viable at this point are further developments in nuclear propulsion and magnetized-beam plasma propulsion.
Endnotes
(1) J. Bennett, M. Donahue, N. Schneider, and Mark Voit, The Solar System, (San Fransisco: Pearson Education), A-15.
(2) “Space Shuttle: Image Gallery,” NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts125/multimedia/gallery/gallery-index.html, 04/07/2009.
(3) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(4) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(5) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(6) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(7) Behar, Michael, “5 ways to get to Mars” Wired: Issue 12.12, December 2004, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/mars.html, 04/07/2009.
(8) Babula, Maria, “Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion,” Space Propulsion and Mission Analysis Office, NASA, http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/projects/ntp/, 04/07/2009.
(9) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(10) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(11) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(12) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(13) Bromley, Blair P., “Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles per Gallon,” Space Exploration, Astrodigital, 2001, http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html, 04/07/2009.
(14) Behar, Michael, “5 ways to get to Mars” Wired: Issue 12.12, December 2004, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/mars.html, 04/07/2009.
(15) Coulter, Dauna, “A Brief History of Solar Sails” Science@NASA, NASA, 07/31/2008, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/31jul_solarsails.htm, 04/07/2009.
(16) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 2.
(17) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 2.
(18) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 3.
(19) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 3.
(20) Bonsor, Kevin, “How Solar Sails Work,” How Stuff Works, Discovery Company, http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-sail4.htm, 04/07/2009, pg. 5.
(21) “Solar Sails,” BBC Science and Nature: Space, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/exploration/futurespaceflight/solarsails.shtml, 04/07/2009.
(22) Coulter, Dauna, “A Brief History of Solar Sails” Science@NASA, NASA, 07/31/2008, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/31jul_solarsails.htm, 04/07/2009.
(23) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(24) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(25) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(26) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(27) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(28) Stricherz, Vince, “New propulsion concept could make possible 90-day round trip to the red planet” University of Washington News, University of Washington, 10/14/2004, http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=5817, 04/07/2009.
(29) Dooling, Dave, “Reaching for the stars: Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft,” Science@NASA, NASA, 04/12/1999, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
(30) Dooling, Dave, “When Isaac met Albert,” NASA: Marshall Space Flight Center, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad12nov97_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
(31) Dooling, Dave, “Reaching for the stars: Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft,” Science@NASA, NASA, 04/12/1999, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
(32) Dooling, Dave, “Reaching for the stars: Scientists examine using antimatter and fusion to propel future spacecraft,” Science@NASA, NASA, 04/12/1999, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm, 04/07/2009.
Human Obstacles to Space Travel, by Jeremy Parker
There are many obstacles to making manned space travel to Mars a reality. We currently crawl through space at a measly 18,000 miles per hour making any but the closest planets and moons unrealistically distant for travel purposes. Space is a vast area but there is a lot of debris floating out there. There is a decent possibility of impact with foreign objects. Unfiltered solar radiation has the potential to quickly degrade high tech equipment necessary for the flight of spaceships. However, these problems occur in non-manned as well as manned travel. I will focus on the dangers of manned space travel on the human body and mind.
There are three major deterrents to long-term manned space travel concerning the human body and psyche. None of them have easy answers and each, by themselves, might be enough to shelve the idea of comprehensive space travel, even to a planet as close as Mars, for decades or even centuries. Colonization of a rock as distant as Mars is essentially impossible today. I will speak about the problems of bone loss due to lack of gravity, unfiltered radiation's effect on a living organism and the psychological effects of such a long trip cooped up with people you might not associate with if given the chance plus the isolation from anything or anyone new for months and years at a time.
Without gravity, bones, especially the lower extremities, atrophy as they are not needed to carry the weight of the human body. This process is called disuse osteoporosis. The lack of stress to the bones from the weight of a human being slows the formation of osteoblast cells which build bone. With the loss of the bone-building cells and the natural process of bones breaking down leads to the loss of mass. Most bones atrophy between one to one and one half percent per month in the emptiness of space. This may not sound too horrible at first glance but right now it would take approximately 15 months to reach Mars. Some bones would have lost 22.5% of their original mass. This, in effect, would equal the effects of growing up bed-ridden as an invalid from birth.
There is currently substantial research into countering the effects of disuse osteoporosis at NASA and certain health organizations. The consensus is that a specific diet mixed with pharmacological aids, such as certain hormones, and specialized exercise regimens may eventually be used to minimize bone loss in space travel, but it is clear they don't have the exact answer now.
Bone loss leads directly to discussion about the second major danger to human beings while traveling in space. Without an atmosphere filtering out radiation, like the Earth has, space ships would get a direct dose of many types of radiation. It is unclear the exact effects of these energies upon human bodies but it is likely many of them are severely damaging at the cellular level. A recent study on mice showed that mice receiving the equivalent of what a human would receive on a trip to Mars lost 39% of spongy bone tissue and as much as 64% connectivity of spongy bone tissue, which is in line with a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Add this loss due to disuse osteoporosis and the effects would be catastrophic.
It is believed among scientists that the radiation in space would likely mutate DNA in humans causing all kinds of cancers. It would cause cataracts in the eyes. It would cause loss of fertility in space travelers and genetic defects in their offspring.
This problem is not easily overcome. Shielding using water, hydrogen or plastics could help but the amount of radiation absorbed by a traveler would still be well above the recommended maximum by NASA's standards. Faster travel would help as there would be less time to absorb these particles. Certain drugs could also help mitigate the effects of radiation on the body. Many scientists believe that a certain amount of risk will always be inherent due to radiation no matter how many safety measures are taken unless we succeed at finding some previously unimagined breakthrough.
The third major obstacle to manned space flight to Mars is the least measurable. It is virtually impossible to study as it is mostly theoretical. There has been no 15 month space travel. Those that do go into space for any amount of time are the best and brightest and are specifically trained for the hazards of space, physical, physiological and psychological. Although this would not preclude them from developing the same problems as the general population it is probably not an ideal test group if we are going beyond travel and are thinking about colonization with a variety of people.
Psychologists have used somewhat similar cases to make hypotheses on the effects of space travel on the mind. Arctic research stations and submarines house people who are in a closed space for many months at a time. Typical responses to the stress of being so isolated in a confined space with a small number of people for an extended period of time are insomnia, anxiety and depression.
Living in such close quarters with people will magnify people's irritation levels at annoying mannerisms and habits. If they are already incompatible with each other the relationship could develop into disdain or even loathing. Living with these feelings about a person you must be with for months or years with no break is unhealthy and can lead to a lot of stress related disorders.
Another problem that has an effect on the mind of the traveler would likely be loss of motivation. Scientists have found that weightlessness of the human body causes a lack of vitality and an increase in fatigue causing lethargy and listlessness.
Keep in mind, these are just the effects observed on men and women that have passed rigorous psychological testing and are probably some of the most psychologically resilient people in the world. For the general public these issues would likely be extremely stressful and could lead to psychoses and neuroses in a portion of the population.
To me it is clear that the effects of space travel on human beings preclude us from comprehensive visits to even the closest planets and colonization of a planet such as Mars (even discounting the problems of terraforming such a place) would be virtually impossible at this time. Much research into propulsion, shielding, medicine and psychology is needed before even considering such a monumental journey.
References
Comins, Neal (2007). The hazards of space travel: A tourist's guide. Villard.
Hullander, Doug (2001, October 1). Space bones. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Science@NASA Web site: HTTP://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01oct_1.htm
Lloyd, Robin (2006, July 18). Radiation and bone loss: Deep space mission concerns. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Science.com Web site: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060718_radiation_bones.html
Fornace, Albert J. (2008, April 16). Space radiation may cause prolonged cellular damage to astronauts. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Science Daily Web site: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415164332.htm
Edwards, Rob (2005). Cosmic rays may prevent long-haul space travel. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from NewScientist Web site: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7753-cosmic-rays-may-prevent-longhaul-space-travel.html
Atkinson , Nancy (2008, August 14). Research and technology to help psychological issues in space. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Universe Today Web site: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/14/research-and-technology-to-help-psychological issues-of-space-travel/
Psychological effects of space travel. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Astrobiology: The living universe Web site: http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=adapt03
There are three major deterrents to long-term manned space travel concerning the human body and psyche. None of them have easy answers and each, by themselves, might be enough to shelve the idea of comprehensive space travel, even to a planet as close as Mars, for decades or even centuries. Colonization of a rock as distant as Mars is essentially impossible today. I will speak about the problems of bone loss due to lack of gravity, unfiltered radiation's effect on a living organism and the psychological effects of such a long trip cooped up with people you might not associate with if given the chance plus the isolation from anything or anyone new for months and years at a time.
Without gravity, bones, especially the lower extremities, atrophy as they are not needed to carry the weight of the human body. This process is called disuse osteoporosis. The lack of stress to the bones from the weight of a human being slows the formation of osteoblast cells which build bone. With the loss of the bone-building cells and the natural process of bones breaking down leads to the loss of mass. Most bones atrophy between one to one and one half percent per month in the emptiness of space. This may not sound too horrible at first glance but right now it would take approximately 15 months to reach Mars. Some bones would have lost 22.5% of their original mass. This, in effect, would equal the effects of growing up bed-ridden as an invalid from birth.
There is currently substantial research into countering the effects of disuse osteoporosis at NASA and certain health organizations. The consensus is that a specific diet mixed with pharmacological aids, such as certain hormones, and specialized exercise regimens may eventually be used to minimize bone loss in space travel, but it is clear they don't have the exact answer now.
Bone loss leads directly to discussion about the second major danger to human beings while traveling in space. Without an atmosphere filtering out radiation, like the Earth has, space ships would get a direct dose of many types of radiation. It is unclear the exact effects of these energies upon human bodies but it is likely many of them are severely damaging at the cellular level. A recent study on mice showed that mice receiving the equivalent of what a human would receive on a trip to Mars lost 39% of spongy bone tissue and as much as 64% connectivity of spongy bone tissue, which is in line with a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Add this loss due to disuse osteoporosis and the effects would be catastrophic.
It is believed among scientists that the radiation in space would likely mutate DNA in humans causing all kinds of cancers. It would cause cataracts in the eyes. It would cause loss of fertility in space travelers and genetic defects in their offspring.
This problem is not easily overcome. Shielding using water, hydrogen or plastics could help but the amount of radiation absorbed by a traveler would still be well above the recommended maximum by NASA's standards. Faster travel would help as there would be less time to absorb these particles. Certain drugs could also help mitigate the effects of radiation on the body. Many scientists believe that a certain amount of risk will always be inherent due to radiation no matter how many safety measures are taken unless we succeed at finding some previously unimagined breakthrough.
The third major obstacle to manned space flight to Mars is the least measurable. It is virtually impossible to study as it is mostly theoretical. There has been no 15 month space travel. Those that do go into space for any amount of time are the best and brightest and are specifically trained for the hazards of space, physical, physiological and psychological. Although this would not preclude them from developing the same problems as the general population it is probably not an ideal test group if we are going beyond travel and are thinking about colonization with a variety of people.
Psychologists have used somewhat similar cases to make hypotheses on the effects of space travel on the mind. Arctic research stations and submarines house people who are in a closed space for many months at a time. Typical responses to the stress of being so isolated in a confined space with a small number of people for an extended period of time are insomnia, anxiety and depression.
Living in such close quarters with people will magnify people's irritation levels at annoying mannerisms and habits. If they are already incompatible with each other the relationship could develop into disdain or even loathing. Living with these feelings about a person you must be with for months or years with no break is unhealthy and can lead to a lot of stress related disorders.
Another problem that has an effect on the mind of the traveler would likely be loss of motivation. Scientists have found that weightlessness of the human body causes a lack of vitality and an increase in fatigue causing lethargy and listlessness.
Keep in mind, these are just the effects observed on men and women that have passed rigorous psychological testing and are probably some of the most psychologically resilient people in the world. For the general public these issues would likely be extremely stressful and could lead to psychoses and neuroses in a portion of the population.
To me it is clear that the effects of space travel on human beings preclude us from comprehensive visits to even the closest planets and colonization of a planet such as Mars (even discounting the problems of terraforming such a place) would be virtually impossible at this time. Much research into propulsion, shielding, medicine and psychology is needed before even considering such a monumental journey.
References
Comins, Neal (2007). The hazards of space travel: A tourist's guide. Villard.
Hullander, Doug (2001, October 1). Space bones. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Science@NASA Web site: HTTP://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast01oct_1.htm
Lloyd, Robin (2006, July 18). Radiation and bone loss: Deep space mission concerns. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Science.com Web site: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060718_radiation_bones.html
Fornace, Albert J. (2008, April 16). Space radiation may cause prolonged cellular damage to astronauts. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Science Daily Web site: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415164332.htm
Edwards, Rob (2005). Cosmic rays may prevent long-haul space travel. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from NewScientist Web site: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7753-cosmic-rays-may-prevent-longhaul-space-travel.html
Atkinson , Nancy (2008, August 14). Research and technology to help psychological issues in space. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Universe Today Web site: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/14/research-and-technology-to-help-psychological issues-of-space-travel/
Psychological effects of space travel. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from Astrobiology: The living universe Web site: http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=adapt03
Blog: Water and Potential Life on Mars
Mars has been thought to have been cold, dry, and dead for billions of years. Mars’ past, however, reveals a much warmer climate with flowing rivers, even though its atmosphere today is too thin, allowing water to freeze or ultraviolet light to penetrate to the surface and boil it away as Hydrogen and Oxygen. There is evidence supporting this past, such as dry river beds and minerals on the surface that form in the presence of water. Additionally, recent observations and research reveal that Mars is not yet dead, but still active. There have been abundant methane emissions in the Martian atmosphere throughout the last several Mars years. By using telescopes with spectrometers, analysts have detected three areas where substantial amounts of methane have been absorbing reflected sunlight from Mars’ surface. These observations show that there are ongoing processes that release methane, especially because Mars’ thin atmosphere normally destroys it quickly. These processes can be attributed to one or both of the following: ongoing geological processes and microbial processes.
The geological approach claims that methane plumes are released due to geological processes similar to those on Earth. Mars does not have any currently known, active volcanoes. The possibility still exists, however. Thus, methane may be released through volcanic out-gassing. In this case, ground water, carbon dioxide, and Mars’ internal heat all factor together to create methane. Then, the methane can travel to the surface and be released through volcanic activities. However, other processes may be factors. The methane plumes observed are most substantial during the warm season and seem to cover areas where there is evidence of ancient ground ice or flowing water. Therefore, another possibility is that methane (similarly formed) is stored in ice “cages” under the surface. During the warm season, permafrost situated over fissures is heated. As the permafrost clears, stored methane can be released into the atmosphere through the openings fissures provide. Additionally, the surface above these ice “cages” may happen to be the areas where there is evidence for ancient ground ice or flowing water. From observations, some methane plumes also contained water vapor, supporting this claim. This fact, however, leads to the microbial approach on the methane emissions.
The microbial approach claims that many biological organisms release methane as they digest nutrients. On earth, microorganisms can thrive two to three kilometers beneath the surface where radiation can split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The microorganisms then use the Hydrogen for energy. Similarly, it is possible that there is subsurface liquid water under the Martian tundra. Microorganisms can then use the Hydrogen, split from water through radiation, in addition to subsurface carbon dioxide to thrive. The methane they release through digestion could be stored under the surface until fissures or volcanic out-gassing allows it to be released into the atmosphere. In addition, with such large amounts being released, these microbial processes may have been occurring for the past billions of years. Knowing that some of Earth’s earliest life forms created methane through carbon dioxide and Hydrogen, there is the potential for the beginnings of life on Mars as well.
Subsurface liquid water is essential for either of the two processes. There is some evidence pointing to the existence of some form of water on Mars, meaning that liquid water below the surface is quite reasonable. As stated before, there has been water vapor discovered in some of the methane plumes, suggesting subsurface water. In 1997, an image from a Mars Global Surveyor showed evidence of seepage features on the walls of a crater. The material in the crater’s gully could just be lava flows, but there is the possibility that the gullies hold ice water instead. Upwelling subsurface water would be a significant factor for potential life on Mars. The water would continually replenish the surface ice, and if the water held organic material or even microorganisms, there would be direct evidence for life in the ice. Then, drilling could be done well in advance of human missions in order to further the promotion of life on Mars. In addition, NASA’s Phoenix Lander has also identified water in a soil sample. There was evidence for ice water by earlier orbiters, as well as by the Phoenix while it was in orbit. However, the Phoenix was also able to land and take a soil sample that was two inches deep. The soil was frozen hard, but the Phoenix was able to warm up the sample and taste liquid water in it. The ice sample does create questions about the ice being able to thaw enough or hold the proper carbon-containing chemicals to support life, but it allows for a greater understanding of the Martian soil for future missions as well.
From the data on methane emissions to the data regarding water on Mars, one can believe that Mars is still active. Although the extent of this activity – whether geological, biological, or both – is unknown, these observations add to the knowledge of Mars. As time progresses, new technologies, discoveries, and missions will continue to enhance this understanding. Whatever the future will reveal, time will only tell!
Sources:
Bridges, Andrew. “NASA Announces Discovery of Evidence of Water on Mars.” Space.com. 2000. 23 March 2009
Hammond, Sara, and G. Webster. “Phoenix Mars Lander: Exploring the Arctic Plain of Mars.” NASA.gov. 2008. 23 March 2009
Steigerwald, Bill. “Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet.” NASA.gov. 2009. 23 March 2009
Water and Potential Life on Mars, By Drew Price
Mars has been thought to have been cold, dry, and dead for billions of years. Mars’ past, however, reveals a much warmer climate with flowing rivers, even though its atmosphere today is too thin, allowing water to freeze or ultraviolet light to penetrate to the surface and boil it away as Hydrogen and Oxygen. There is evidence supporting this past, such as dry river beds and minerals on the surface that form in the presence of water. Additionally, recent observations and research reveal that Mars is not yet dead, but still active. There have been abundant methane emissions in the Martian atmosphere throughout the last several Mars years. By using telescopes with spectrometers, analysts have detected three areas where substantial amounts of methane have been absorbing reflected sunlight from Mars’ surface. These observations show that there are ongoing processes that release methane, especially because Mars’ thin atmosphere normally destroys it quickly. These processes can be attributed to one or both of the following: ongoing geological processes and microbial processes.
The geological approach claims that methane plumes are released due to geological processes similar to those on Earth. Mars does not have any currently known, active volcanoes. The possibility still exists, however. Thus, methane may be released through volcanic out-gassing. In this case, ground water, carbon dioxide, and Mars’ internal heat all factor together to create methane. Then, the methane can travel to the surface and be released through volcanic activities. However, other processes may be factors. The methane plumes observed are most substantial during the warm season and seem to cover areas where there is evidence of ancient ground ice or flowing water. Therefore, another possibility is that methane (similarly formed) is stored in ice “cages” under the surface. During the warm season, permafrost situated over fissures is heated. As the permafrost clears, stored methane can be released into the atmosphere through the openings fissures provide. Additionally, the surface above these ice “cages” may happen to be the areas where there is evidence for ancient ground ice or flowing water. From observations, some methane plumes also contained water vapor, supporting this claim. This fact, however, leads to the microbial approach on the methane emissions.
The microbial approach claims that many biological organisms release methane as they digest nutrients. On earth, microorganisms can thrive two to three kilometers beneath the surface where radiation can split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The microorganisms then use the Hydrogen for energy. Similarly, it is possible that there is subsurface liquid water under the Martian tundra. Microorganisms can then use the Hydrogen, split from water through radiation, in addition to subsurface carbon dioxide to thrive. The methane they release through digestion could be stored under the surface until fissures or volcanic out-gassing allows it to be released into the atmosphere. In addition, with such large amounts being released, these microbial processes may have been occurring for the past billions of years. Knowing that some of Earth’s earliest life forms created methane through carbon dioxide and Hydrogen, there is the potential for the beginnings of life on Mars as well.
Subsurface liquid water is essential for either of the two processes. There is some evidence pointing to the existence of some form of water on Mars, meaning that liquid water below the surface is quite reasonable. As stated before, there has been water vapor discovered in some of the methane plumes, suggesting subsurface water. In 1997, an image from a Mars Global Surveyor showed evidence of seepage features on the walls of a crater. The material in the crater’s gully could just be lava flows, but there is the possibility that the gullies hold ice water instead. Upwelling subsurface water would be a significant factor for potential life on Mars. The water would continually replenish the surface ice, and if the water held organic material or even microorganisms, there would be direct evidence for life in the ice. Then, drilling could be done well in advance of human missions in order to further the promotion of life on Mars. In addition, NASA’s Phoenix Lander has also identified water in a soil sample. There was evidence for ice water by earlier orbiters, as well as by the Phoenix while it was in orbit. However, the Phoenix was also able to land and take a soil sample that was two inches deep. The soil was frozen hard, but the Phoenix was able to warm up the sample and taste liquid water in it. The ice sample does create questions about the ice being able to thaw enough or hold the proper carbon-containing chemicals to support life, but it allows for a greater understanding of the Martian soil for future missions as well.
From the data on methane emissions to the data regarding water on Mars, one can believe that Mars is still active. Although the extent of this activity – whether geological, biological, or both – is unknown, these observations add to the knowledge of Mars. As time progresses, new technologies, discoveries, and missions will continue to enhance this understanding. Whatever the future will reveal, time will only tell!
Sources:
Bridges, Andrew. “NASA Announces Discovery of Evidence of Water on Mars.” Space.com. 2000. 23 March 2009.
Hammond, Sara, and G. Webster. “Phoenix Mars Lander: Exploring the Arctic Plain of Mars.” NASA.gov. 2008. 23 March 2009.
Steigerwald, Bill. “Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet.” NASA.gov. 2009. 23 March 2009.
The geological approach claims that methane plumes are released due to geological processes similar to those on Earth. Mars does not have any currently known, active volcanoes. The possibility still exists, however. Thus, methane may be released through volcanic out-gassing. In this case, ground water, carbon dioxide, and Mars’ internal heat all factor together to create methane. Then, the methane can travel to the surface and be released through volcanic activities. However, other processes may be factors. The methane plumes observed are most substantial during the warm season and seem to cover areas where there is evidence of ancient ground ice or flowing water. Therefore, another possibility is that methane (similarly formed) is stored in ice “cages” under the surface. During the warm season, permafrost situated over fissures is heated. As the permafrost clears, stored methane can be released into the atmosphere through the openings fissures provide. Additionally, the surface above these ice “cages” may happen to be the areas where there is evidence for ancient ground ice or flowing water. From observations, some methane plumes also contained water vapor, supporting this claim. This fact, however, leads to the microbial approach on the methane emissions.
The microbial approach claims that many biological organisms release methane as they digest nutrients. On earth, microorganisms can thrive two to three kilometers beneath the surface where radiation can split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. The microorganisms then use the Hydrogen for energy. Similarly, it is possible that there is subsurface liquid water under the Martian tundra. Microorganisms can then use the Hydrogen, split from water through radiation, in addition to subsurface carbon dioxide to thrive. The methane they release through digestion could be stored under the surface until fissures or volcanic out-gassing allows it to be released into the atmosphere. In addition, with such large amounts being released, these microbial processes may have been occurring for the past billions of years. Knowing that some of Earth’s earliest life forms created methane through carbon dioxide and Hydrogen, there is the potential for the beginnings of life on Mars as well.
Subsurface liquid water is essential for either of the two processes. There is some evidence pointing to the existence of some form of water on Mars, meaning that liquid water below the surface is quite reasonable. As stated before, there has been water vapor discovered in some of the methane plumes, suggesting subsurface water. In 1997, an image from a Mars Global Surveyor showed evidence of seepage features on the walls of a crater. The material in the crater’s gully could just be lava flows, but there is the possibility that the gullies hold ice water instead. Upwelling subsurface water would be a significant factor for potential life on Mars. The water would continually replenish the surface ice, and if the water held organic material or even microorganisms, there would be direct evidence for life in the ice. Then, drilling could be done well in advance of human missions in order to further the promotion of life on Mars. In addition, NASA’s Phoenix Lander has also identified water in a soil sample. There was evidence for ice water by earlier orbiters, as well as by the Phoenix while it was in orbit. However, the Phoenix was also able to land and take a soil sample that was two inches deep. The soil was frozen hard, but the Phoenix was able to warm up the sample and taste liquid water in it. The ice sample does create questions about the ice being able to thaw enough or hold the proper carbon-containing chemicals to support life, but it allows for a greater understanding of the Martian soil for future missions as well.
From the data on methane emissions to the data regarding water on Mars, one can believe that Mars is still active. Although the extent of this activity – whether geological, biological, or both – is unknown, these observations add to the knowledge of Mars. As time progresses, new technologies, discoveries, and missions will continue to enhance this understanding. Whatever the future will reveal, time will only tell!
Sources:
Bridges, Andrew. “NASA Announces Discovery of Evidence of Water on Mars.” Space.com. 2000. 23 March 2009
Hammond, Sara, and G. Webster. “Phoenix Mars Lander: Exploring the Arctic Plain of Mars.” NASA.gov. 2008. 23 March 2009
Steigerwald, Bill. “Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet.” NASA.gov. 2009. 23 March 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
