Archives For mars

valles marineris

Despite the flimsy plans and questionable premise of the Mars One project, there are now tens of thousands of people who signed up to possibly die on another planet and only a few of them will be chosen for the reality show style mission. Which is still many years away from being ready in any way, shape or form. But as would-be colonists are preparing to leave Earth behind for an alien tundra, one of the big things going overlooked is their mental health, according to a post featured in The Guardian. No, no one’s implying that the applicants are not in their right mind to sign up for a once in a lifetime trip, literally, but that their psyche is in serious danger because a number of studies on human behavior in isolation, under scruitiny, and in confined spaces for a long period of time point to a very high probability of boredom, depression, and anxiety. And the last thing you want a space colonist to be is bored, depressed, and agitated. That’s when really, really bad things can happen and with no one to intervene, they can spiral out of control while a shocked audience powerlessly watches from up to 140 million miles away. This would make for an unforgettable night of TV, but it’s certainly wouldn’t make for a good mission to Mars.

As I recently argued, this is why we need spacious, almost luxury spacecraft if we want to really explore the solar system and beyond. We want our astronauts to be stimulated and have every possible comfort of home. The excitement of a mission to another planet would be powerful, but it’s only going to last so long until the monotony of a long trip takes over and all the experiments and chores turn into tedious tasks on a checklist. We need interplanetary internet with Netflix as well as games, the ability to leave messages to friends and loved ones on Earth at any time, the schedule should a lot for weekends, and the habitats should allow for both communal areas, and big private spaces to counter the feeling of being confined. Certainly this sounds like a wish list of a spoiled teenager rather than necessities for astronauts, but astronauts are humans too and we need to take care of their mental health while they’re doing things no human has ever done, and exploring places no human has ever been. Considering that they’re trying to build a city in an icy, poisonous, alien desert, is trying to give them a way to play Halo or surf the web really an unjustifiable luxury, especially if it will keep them from possibly developing a mental illness?

[ illustration by Tiago da Silva ]

Share

approach to mars

According to Wired’s laundry list of technical and political issues with getting humans to Mars by the year 2030 or so, exploring another planet many millions of miles away won’t be Apollo 2.0 in many ways. It will be an order of magnitude more expensive per launch, require 30 months for a round trip, and needs to be financed, overseen, and executed by an international group that will include space agencies and ambitious aerospace companies with plans and launch vehicles of their own. And yet, the designs being drawn up sound remarkably like Apollo on steroids. We’re basically working with the same basic mission plans we had in the 1980s with a few workarounds for handling fuel and oxygen. Come on folks, this is another planet. It’s not just a status symbol and we don’t need to rush there just to say we went. Really, we don’t. Flag planting is great for propaganda and PR purposes, but it’s disastrous for long term exploration, which needs to be a very boring, consistent, and yes, expensive effort. We need a better plan than this.

Now, as much as this blog will support my assertion that I’m all about space exploration and will go as far as to advocate augmenting humans to travel into deep space (which led to numerous arguments with the Singularity Institute’s fellows), we don’t have to go to Mars as soon as we’re able to launch. It’s been there for 4.5 billion years. It’s not going anywhere for at least another five billion, and we owe it to ourselves to do it right. This is why instead of sending a much bigger capsule or an updated ISS for a 30 month round trip, we need to send inflatable, rotating space stations powered by small nuclear reactors. Instead of landers, we need to send self-assembling habitats. Instead of going to Mars to stick a flag into the ground, collect rocks, and do some very brief and limited experiments to look for traces of organic compounds, we need to commit to an outright colonization effort, and we need to test the basics on the Moon before we go. We won’t fulfill our dreams of roaming the stars and living on alien worlds if we don’t get this right.

Yes, it sounds downright crazy to propose something like that, especially thanks to the political climates of today. And it is. But at the risk of repeating myself, when we have trillions of banks to erase their bad bets from the books and nothing to aid the paltry budgets of space agencies or labs working on the technology of the future, the issue isn’t money. It’s priorities, vision, and will, and today’s politicians have the first one skewed, and more often than not either lack the other two, or envision our society going backwards as if this is a good thing. And we can keep right on placating ourselves by saying that we’ll at least get to roam around the solar system a bit like we did once, but that’s not how we should be exploring space. We know it’s not. if you want to really reach out into space, you go in for the long term with your eye on the spin-offs and benefits that will rain down from massive, ambitious, integrated projects that try to do what’s never been done before not by reinventing the wheel, but by attaching said wheel to a new airplane.

Share

mars one habitat

The Mars One project generated a good deal of media attention by promising to fund its efforts to colonize the Red Planet with a reality show which would follow the crews on their one way trip and chronicle their efforts at living on another world. Now while this sounds like the most far out premise for the next season of Survivor, it’s a terrible idea for an actual mission. If you’ve ever seen a reality show, you know that producers don’t really cast people as much as they cast the stereotypes they think will give viewers the most bang for their buck. If Gordon Ramsey didn’t go on epic tirades over every dish not up to his par, slamming trays, punching the food, and having fits of apoplectic rage that would put a banshee to shame, you’d be left with a fairly boring hour of TV that would be more at home at the Food Network than on a broadcast channel. Could you imagine Hell’s Spacecraft as a real mission to extend human cities to a new planet?

And that’s not even getting to the fact that Mars One is asking anyone to apply for what should be a mission for extremely well trained professionals with numerous actual space flights on their resumes, and charging as much as $38 just to look at an application, and that it will rely on new rockets built by SpaceX to do the actual work, as well as the fact that it’s spending no time at all trying to address all the problems with flying to Mars in capsules? At the end of the day this has to be either a scam, or just a really terrible idea that will never pan out. Make no mistake, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to colonize Mars or that we can’t pull it off if we really devoted plenty of time, energy, and resources to it. We absolutely should and we’re probably very close to the place we need to be to safely and comfortably send crews to the Red Planet. But making reality shows out of it, raising money by promising one way trips to alien worlds, and relying on brand new technology not really meant or tested for these missions is not the way to go about it.

Share

approach to mars

Whatever you do, don’t say that Elon Musk isn’t ambitious. While most Silicon Valley bigwigs try to sell us on some new app they always promise will change the world as we know it and larding their pitch with buzzwords like "social," "cloud-ready," and "disruption," he put his resources into a craft able to resupply the ISS and is busily planning what could only be described as a city of 80,000 people on Mars. How does he think this would happen? First, make his rockets reusable so they can be cleaned up and ready for their next launch in a matter of days. Second, using space tourism to create the economies of scale necessary to cut the cost of traveling to Mars to just about $500,000 or so. But while reusable spacecraft and economies of scale will go a long way, would they really encourage a mass migration of tens of thousands of people to a hostile alien world with immense dust storms, non-negligible radiation hazards, and a distinct lack of the few basic things they’ll need to survive outside of their little environmental bubble?

If SpaceX wants a Martian city, it will need to cut the trip time down from 8 months and make the flight itself a lot safer and a lot more comfortable than in an Apollo-style capsule. It would have to essentially set up something much like a space station which would travel between our planets, ferrying passengers back and forth, powering it and its engines with nuclear reactors. That’s not an easy task, both from engineering and legal standpoints, though the latter could pose far more of a problem than the former considering the history of the Outer Space Treaty. And while I can certainly see adventurous billionaires and scientific agencies shelling out even $50 million for a ticket to Mars, does SpaceX really think it can maintain a population of 80,000 people who would expect creature comforts and will have to be constantly supervised to ensure that exposure to alien gravity and radiation for months on end doesn’t leave them incapable of ever setting foot on Earth again? Sounds like Musk would have his hands full.

Finally, here’s another issue to consider. What exactly would this city provide from an economic standpoint to justify its existence? There are only so many tourists and so many scientists. While it certainly does make sense to set up a Martian habitat, a population goal of 80,000 might be a little too ambitious to be workable and the habitat is unlikely to be economically self-sustaining if we consider how remote it will be and how difficult it will be to maintain. I can certainly see why Musk would want to shoot for something like this and definitely appreciate doing science for the sake of science. But after a certain limit, something like a city or a research base would have to give companies reasons to invest in it, otherwise, it will quickly either run out of funding or work and be abandoned. Take the ISS for example. After tens of billions of dollars and decades upon decades of work, it’s finally completed. Only to be understaffed and underutilized, kept alive by space agencies trying to justify the project that’ll never be what it was meant to become. I hope that Musk takes the ISS’ example to heart and avoids making the same mistake…

Share

circuit boards

Once upon a time I wrote a post about the sacrifices in intelligence our rovers have to make to be able to travel to other worlds and why these sacrifices are necessary. Basically, we can build very smart bots here on Earth because we can give them a big energy supply for faster, more complex, and more energy demanding computation. On Mars, however, this big energy supply will be a big liability since it will have to take away from a rover’s ability to move or its overall mission time. I’m still pretty confident in my earlier assessment, but some stories spreading around pop sci blogs made me realize that there was a AI-hobbling factor forgotten that wasn’t addressed; cosmic rays. As rovers explore Mars, they’re bombarded with radiation that easily penetrates through the red planet’ thin atmosphere. To give Curiosity the best possible tools to explore the Martian surface, it was given a very powerful setup, at least by spacecraft standards.

BAE Systems’ RAD750 chips provide it with a blazing dual 200 MHz processors and 256 MB of DRAM as well as an entire 2 GB of flash memory. Again, this is blazing only in the world of space travel since these are pretty much the specs for a low end smartphone, and even that probably has a dual core 1 GHz CPU. But the low end smartphone probably can’t withstand a massive radioactive bombardment without going haywire. The problem is the DRAM, or the memory the computer uses to keep all the things it needs to run. When hit by cosmic rays, it goes through something called a bit flip. Ordinarily, for us, this is no big deal because the vast majority of the memory our devices use is taken up by some background process, usually one with enough temporary variables that can absorb the hit before being cleared out of a register in a matter of nanoseconds. This means we either don’t care, or don’t notice, and that’s just fine for those rare cases when a stray particle flips a bit or two. Hell, we lose entire packets when we send them around the internet with certain protocols and that’s a lot more than a bit, but life goes on.

For rovers on other worlds, this is a much, much bigger issue. Not only are the bit flips a lot more frequent since they’re being showered by energetic particles, there’s a lot less margin for error since their setups are a lot more lean. Were a particle case a most significant bit to flip while a small array of bytes is telling the rover how to move, the consequences could be disastrous. The value for 0x00 [00000000] could turn into 0x80 [10000000] and instead of telling the wheel motors to stop, the byte stream just gave it the command to apply 50% power to each wheel, driving it into a ditch, or right off a cliff. And this is why the RAD750 chip is made to only tolerate a single bit flip per year, about twice during the entire Curiosity mission. Were the scenario I just outlined happen, the chip would auto-correct the stream to keep 0x00 as it was when assigned. Rovers go on their merry way, JPL is not living in fear of cosmic rays giving Curiosity a mind of its own, and we get great high rez pictures from the surface of another planet. Win, win, win, right?

Yes, but the auto-correction and the radiation hardening necessitates some tradeoff. It makes the chip more expensive, or consume a little more power, or slows down the CPU cycles, all of which could be used to make rovers smarter and more autonomous. Though dumbing them down a little is a small sacrifice for making sure they’re a lot less likely to randomly drive off a cliff unless you have the budget to build a much bigger robot, launch it on a much more powerful rocket, and devise a way for it to land safely tens if not hundreds of millions of miles from home. Don’t get me wrong, Curiosity’s dual cores and an RTG will make it a lot smarter than previous rovers, but it’s hardly an E-Einstein and unless we find a way to double or triple the size of our Martian rovers, or create artificial magnetospheres for our spacecraft, it’s going to be fairly close to the peak of the kind of intelligence we can get in an interplanetary robot for the next decade or so. Actually, considering that just testing and certifying a new radiation-hardened chip can take that long, that may be an optimistic assessment.

And this is why ultimately, we have to go to other worlds ourselves if we want to do high impact science quickly and efficiently. Robots are safer, they’re cheaper, and they don’t want hazard pay, true. But ultimately, humans are going to be much better explorers than the rovers and probes they send. Not only do they have the necessary brainpower to deal with challenging alien environments without a 34 minute delay between actions, they also have the will and interest to try new things and fit in an experiment or two that can’t be crammed into a rover’s schedule but can teach us something new and exciting as well. And this is not to mention the medical benefits we’d reap from getting humans ready to walk on other worlds and the possible wonders it could do for surgeries, physical therapy, and regenerative treatments as all these technologies and ideas are forces to come together, compete, and produce a roadmap that can be empirically tested and proven by a real mission…

Share

approach to mars

After screaming through the Martian atmosphere and pulling off a ridiculously complicated and risky set of maneuvers, Curiosity is finally on the surface of the Red Planet. Aside from the sheer fact that we have the technology to launch an SUV-sized robot to another planet and land it with pinpoint accuracy after guiding it for more than half a billion kilometers through the void of space being awesome beyond words, this landing also demonstrates how much better NASA has been getting in landing on Mars. Considering the history of many previous missions to the cold desert world, having four machines execute three different types of descent without a hitch and survive long enough to begin extended missions just shows that the more we practice, the better we keep getting at this whole space-faring thing.

Because we can’t recreate all the rigors of space travel in the lab, we have to actually go there and test our technology in situ, and the current generations of Mars missions is reaping the benefits of all this practice. But the big question is when we’ll finally send humans to the Red Planet to join the rovers and try to build outposts on another world to see whether our species can make it as a two-planet one. Well, in my humble opinion, building outposts on the Moon has to come first so we don’t take a leap into deep space just to find that we missed something crucial because we rushed. Even more importantly, we’d need to really experiment with some bleeding age medical ideas to make human bodies far more resilient to harsh environments, ideas that could have a very tangible impact right here on Earth for tens of millions, if not billions, of people of all ages across the world…

[ illustration by NASA/JPL/Caltech ]

Share

Since humans first realized that the strange points of light in the night sky lay beyond this planet, there were a lot of dreamers who talked of how one day we would soar among the stars and travel to other worlds. And for the vast majority of recorded history, they were in the minority as many others grumbled that the challenges of leaving the Earth are simply too great to overcome. If you lived at that time, you would’ve probably joined them as well. I mean, consider what sending a probe to another world entails. You balance your device on top of an enormous metal tube filled with flammable, toxic liquids and solids, send it up on a controlled explosion for a few hundred miles, gently detach your probe with explosive bolts (since "gentle" and "explosives" go together so well), send it barreling through the inky blackness of space for millions of miles, using the position of little pinpricks of light to stay on course, whip around your target world, and then go from 17,000 mph or more to a soft, precise landing in a zone a few miles across. No sweat, right? Well, rocket scientists beg to differ…

No wonder landing on Mars is called Seven Minutes of Terror. Not only are you threading the cosmic needle a couple of hundred million miles from home, you’re also trying to control an event akin to a meteor impact with tiny rockets and have no way of knowing whether you’ve succeeded or failed until it’s all been over for 14 slow, agonizing minutes. Quite frankly, it’s amazing that we have the math and technology to even think about going to another planet, much less successfully doing it again and again. And to think that in an age when we send robots to explore other worlds on a relatively routine basis, there are people who think this is just a big waste of time, money, and effort, forgetting that it’s these kinds of endeavors that defined human civilization, not a rat race through stock markets, or how many shopping malls we build, or how many channels we get on a cable box with a DVR. Thankfully, despite the pathological short-sightedness and lack of vision of those who ended up holding the purse strings for space agencies, we’re still flying into space, we’re still exploring, and we talk about the Seven Minutes of Terror from practical experience rather than conjecture. And if we have to endure a few minutes of anxious agony to keep exploring, I say it’s worth every minute of anticipation.

Share

Ever since Giovanni Schiaparelli saw what he termed canals on Mars, we’ve been expecting the red planet to be home to an advanced alien species, often presented as little green men and women encased in metallic, bulky suits in pop culture. Yes, the canal business may well have been a misunderstanding on the part of the translators since Schiaparelli may have meant completely natural gullies, but then again, he never corrected reports claiming evidence for life on Mars as evidenced by the blurry, waterway like features spanning across a good deal of the planet. Science fiction quickly seized on the news and many a novel about a dry and slowly dying world populated by a complex, intelligent civilization either waiting to be rescued, or decaying into chaos and war over dwindling resources were written, portraying the canals as either their last-ditch effort to save all that was still left, or the ruins of their heyday. You could say that we’re primed for the notion of life on Mars and every discovery of water in its past seems to hint at the chance of something living, even if it’s only microbes buried deep under the barren, inhospitably radioactive surface. But where are all these microbes hiding?

In the latest iteration of water without life cycle, the ESA reports that once upon a time, Mars had an enormous ocean if not two covering much of its northern hemisphere, one a billion years after the other. While Earth is still cooling down from its collision with Thea and giving birth to continents, Mars is developing vast oceans in which life can flourish. Unfortunately, in its smaller gravity and thin atmosphere, all that water would be frozen in just a million years if it hadn’t evaporated before that, too fast for life to form according to some. Just to add insult to injury, the oceans may have been extremely salty, so salty that some astrobiologists doubt that life could even survive in these conditions. And going by this train of thought, we have to conclude that life we can understand never even got a chance to take root on Mars, much less grow and diversify. Or do we? After all, a hypersalene lake is not exactly a dead zone for all living things and we find hearty bacteria living there almost all the time. Likewise, a million years in not exactly fast and for microbes with life spans of days if not hours, a few billion generations can come and go. Since evolution works by generation rather than by time, they would evolve at warp speed by comparison to macroscopic life and have a chance to adapt and survive.

Furthermore, since we’ve never seen an alien life form and don’t know how long it took for life to arise here on our own world, how can we be sure that for Martian microbes, a million years is too little time to develop? How do we know if they weren’t already there before the oceans formed, using another source of water? True, it’s a lot more likely than not that these mirobes would be restricted to water as a solvent in their chemical reactions in their bodies because Mars is just not cold enough to liquefy gases that could be a substitute, but any other assertion about them could still be questioned. And since we haven’t exactly explored all of the red planet with a very clear idea for what we’re looking, it’s hard to definitively rule out that it may still host life. Obviously, we’re going to need to temper out expectations but at the same time, it may be wise to hold off on pronouncements of how long was long enough for life to get started on Mars and which resources it will and will not have. We’re still finding life in amazing, seemingly utterly inhospitable and alien places on Earth, and our primeval world’s environment, which we know for a fact was crawling with life, would be so harsh and alien to us, we would die from exposure to toxic gases and unbearable heat if we ever went back there in a time machine. Why not give Mars the same benefit of the doubt that we give our caves, ocean depths, and subterranean lakes?

Share

Predictions for space exploration projects have to be bold to inspire imaginations and recruit daring talent, as recent history seems to show quite clearly. How much can one get inspired by a space exploration plan with little vision and uncertain deadlines, or being given ideas for projects that will last for centuries, implying a necessity to treat entire generations of engineers and scientists as replaceable cogs in a machine? But there is a fine line between bold and crazy in this realm and Elion Musk may just have crossed the line with a claim of being willing and able to land 10,000 people on Mars for just $5 billion, as a precursor to millions whose lives will continue on the Red Planet. Now, I could buy the lowballed figure of $150 billion for the project with a very aggressive and well-coordinated plan and even 800 astronauts on Mars sounds somewhat doable, but a population of 10,000 Martians for less than the cost of three shuttle launches? Sorry, but absolutely no way it’ll happen simply because the hurdles of living on another planet are so difficult and expensive to overcome.

Now don’t get me wrong, we definitely need a kick in the rear to explore space and reap the benefits of a tightly focused and bold set of R&D programs, especially since simply sloshing money around banks isn’t helping a moribund global economy. But we also need to be realistic about what it takes to explore other worlds. We are going to be sending humans to live and work in a place to which humans have never been before, where we’ll have no air to breather, only a third of the gravity we’re used to, and the surface is bathed with lethal radiation, none of which makes for even a remotely hospitable environment for life. The medical enhancements that will be involved with protecting them would easily exceed Musk’s overall budget for the entire mission. Ideally, we would want to send not just well trained humans but much tougher cyborgs with longer lifespans and abilities which allow them to navigate an alien environment without getting severely sick. Anything less means that the crews would be subject to two years of life-threatening radiation while their muscles waste away. Granted, we do make it clear to astronauts that what they do carries risk, but we owe it to ourselves to minimize it.

We have to keep in mind that the technology we develop to shield astronauts from the harm of alien worlds is useful to us as well because we can use it to fight degenerative diseases, extend our lives, and join them on those alien bases. Ultimately, we’re doing this not to plant a flag, but for our own benefit as a civilization which is exactly why we should be willing to invest the money in such a long term goal. But this brings up the source of the funds required. Who will be willing to spend the billions to get us to Mars and who will be willing to unite the many companies which will have to be involved into such a large project? It would have to involve a mix of government agencies, private corporations, and newly created GSEs to host competitions, dole out contracts, and make sure that the objectives are being adequately met. The organizations don’t have to be large and we should do all we can to avoid budgetary and staffing bloat, but they need to exist in some way shape or form to provide expert advice and oversight of the projects involved, as well as create the spinoffs to keep cash flows steady since just traveling to Mars won’t provide us with anything valuable by itself.

We can’t set up a profitable mining operation there, and we are incredibly unlikely to find deposits of insanely valuable unobtanium laying under the desert rocks. But we can learn immensely from our attempts to live on another world and travel through the vast expanses of space and apply this knowledge to reshape Earth. And over the long term, the returns from such an ambitious project will be worth far more than any mining mission or space tourism business (though these are definitely viable options for Martian exploration), just like a brief burst of lunar excursions provided countless bold ideas for new technologies and provided the basis for new devices we don’t even bother to think about twice today. We desperately need a new kind of global economy, one based on innovation and ambitious research and development projects, but we also need to be realistic about what they’ll take and avoid pulling an Elion Musk by claiming we can change the world on the cheap.

[ illustration by Zane Bien ]

Share

A recently trumpeted paper on astrobiology did some very interesting modeling in a search for places on Mars where some very tough terrestrial microorganisms could survive and came to a very surprising conclusion. It appears that some 3.2% of the red planet could be habitable by volume, which would make it more friendly to life than our seemingly idyllic world, a world which has been populated with countless living things for billions of years. Now, considering that the Martian surface is as inhospitable to life as it gets because it’s constantly bathed in radiation potent enough to kill even the most radiation resistant creatures we know to exist, all of this habitable alien real estate is underground, where the deadly rays can’t reach and the temperature and pressure are just right for liquid water to flow through porous rock. Good news, right? If we just dig enough, a future robot, or better yet, a human astrobiologist, should be able to find honest to goodness little aliens.

Yes, little green germs aren’t exactly the little green men of classic science fiction, but hey, at least they’ll be a real extraterrestrial organism and we’ll know for a fact that we’re not alone in the universe. If life could arise on two planets in the same solar system and might be swimming under miles of ice on a moon that looks like a better and better candidate for alien habitation every day, certainly the entire universe is teeming with all sorts of living things, right? Hold that thought. One of the big caveats of using these models as a definitive guide for alien hunting is the lack of detail. In their zeal to report a sensational story, most pop sci outlets just repeated the great statistic and used it as a tie in to Curiosity’s upcoming mission to track down where exactly Martian microbes would settle into a nice colony to call home. But the simulations merely looked at how far down into the red planet’s caves and rocks we could go and still find possible traces of liquid water. The question of an active, frequently stirred and replenished nutrient base for life to function was briefly mentioned in the paper’s disclaimers for future research, despite being the second main prerequisite for habitability.

Of course it’s perfectly fine for a scientific paper to focus on just one narrow question and leave tangents for a team interested in building up on its work. It’s only frustrating when a premise is obviously flimsy or just out of left field and all the important details are waived off as something for others to refine. But in this case, the pop sci news circuit neglected to mention that the authors only set out to see how far Martian rovers could keep on following the water, as per NASA’s strategy for finding life on the red planet, and reported their results as one, big, definitive model showing that Mars is actually more habitable to life than Earth by volume while all it really says is that under the Martian surface, liquid water should be quite plentiful if we extrapolate some models of our own subterranean conditions and ecology to our diminutive, red, desert cousin in the inner solar system, and does a fairly thorough job of establishing the reasoning behind this conclusion. The leap from where we could find water on Mars to declaring that the typically monolithic block known as "scientists" estimate that the caverns of Mars hold three times the habitable territory by volume than Earth from that conclusion was simply a sensationalistic over-exaggeration. We don’t know how truly hospitable to life Mars really is.

But all that said, Mars is a very promising target for extraterrestrial microbes and the curtain of radiation which makes life nearly impossible on its surface will actually aid in our search for them. As noted in the reference, leaving our equipment to soak up the powerful UV rays for a few hours would sterilize it and any biota found in caverns or after digging several dozen feet into the red soil is then extremely likely to be native rather than the forward contamination from our own world. And yes, that means we absolutely should go there and devote as many resources as possible to make walking on Mars a reality. Of course the R&D involved won’t only benefit astrobiologists since the necessary reactors, self-sustaining habitats, and treatments to combat the damage caused by constant exposure to radiation could generate tens of billions in revenues and profits for all of the companies involved in putting together the mission’s toolkits if they channel them into mass market products ranging from medical devices to infrastructure. Actually, come to think of it, maybe one of the best things we’d be able to do for the world’s fragile economy is to go on a hunt for some little green germs and test all the pop sci news friendly astrobiology papers like this one on the actual surface of another planet. We tried just about everything else at this point and it doesn’t seem to be working, so why not think outside the box for a bit?

See: Jones, E., Lineweaver, C., Clarke, J. (2011) An extensive phase space for the potential Martian biosphere Astrobiology DOI: 10.1089/ast.2011.0660

Share