WHY GO TO MARS?

Author’s Note: Trill is a ficticious female acquaintance who makes it possible to write in what for me is a comfortable style.

My Dear Trill,
        

         Odd that while I am thinking about why we should be planning to visit and eventually colonize Mars, you would question me on the same subject. Sooner or later, I should have expected this question from you, and I’m glad you asked, because the lure of adventure beyond our planet, into the solar system and even into interstellar space, prompted, in part, by the success of the Apollo mission, continues. A common cry when the Apollo program ended was: “On to Mars.” But when the estimated cost of such a journey was upwards of a hundred billion dollars, Congressional enthusiasm for the venture cooled. Moreover, the technical challenges far surpassed those that were needed to go to the moon.

         A single problem may prevent any such mission in the near future. One round trip by an astronaut to Mars may cause exposure to cosmic rays equivalent to the total permissible for an entire career. It is a serious problem because brain damage is the main effect, and that could jeopardize the success of a mission where ability to make judgments is a primary requirement. The physics for cosmic ray shielding is simply not known as yet. Earth is fortunate. A strong magnetic field diverts galactic cosmic rays and harmful ones from the sun to the poles.
       Reasons for going to Mars persist. Among them is that humans are born to explore, and examples are cited in Earth’s history ranging from Alexander the Great’s foray to the East with his armies as far as India, the Lewis and Clarke expedition, exploring the west on the North American continent, Livingston in Africa, and lately the Apollo mission to place man on the moon. If one were to look for missions that parallels a journey to Mars for its duration, the sailing of HMS Beagle, from 1831 to 1836 to chart the southern waters under Captain Fitzroy, might be cited. This was the second sailing mission for the ship, on which Charles Darwin was a passenger. The difference was that the ship was able to make stops for supplies and refurbishment. A trip to Mars would have no such luxury. Similarly, the duration of the Lewis and Clark expedition, just over 2 years, in the early 1800’s, the explorers living off the land.

          Other reasons, rather specious, is that in a few million years the sun will expand and engulf Earth and humans must be prepared to move to a planet more distant from the sun. Or that a predictable event will threaten all life on Earth. This could be caused, for example, by collision with a large asteroid, which has occurred in the past. We therefore must move some humans away, to another planet, to preserve the species.This assumes that humans are the only species worth saving, which is arguable. Even Noah saw the value in preserving as many species as the Ark could accommodate.

         Ample water supply is one of the largest consumables for a successful settlement, History of new settlements on Earth tells us that settlers made certain that water was nearby. A future where water is conserved by recycling urine, sweat, wash water, and expelled moisture content from breathing, is bleak indeed, especially if the process follows a likely law of diminishing return. Supplying water by rocket from Earth is possible but a preposterous notion. Scientists are quite certain that subterranean water exists on Mars.

        Supposing a group of would-be colonists were fortunate enough to land in a region close to a under- ground aquifer..... say about thirty feet underground. Initially, a comparable event on Earth would be similar to landing in the middle of the Gobi Desert, where access to a large deposit of local water could change everything.
         For the fun of it, let’s look at the problems associated with getting water from an aquifer to a faucet in a Mars colony structure. To begin, if you drove a pipe down , say thirty feet to the water, you couldn’t pump it with a surface pump as the atmospheric pressure can lift water only 2.4 inches on Mars, versus 33 feet on Earth. With temperatures varying from 70 deg. Fahrenheit to -225 degrees Fahrenheit, freezing avoidance measures would be necessary.

        On Earth, you would call up a well driller, who would promptly appear with his Diesel powered drill rig and a truckload of steel casing for lining the drill hole. On completion of the well hole an electric motor powered pump would be mounted either at the surface, or lowered into the water, depending upon the depth of the well hole. Freezing problems, if any, are easily managed.

        To get water on Mars, significant effort and equipment, designed to function in the Martian envi- ronment, would be required. It is conceivable that well drilling equipment could be transported and erected on Mars. Presumably a drilling rig would be electrically powered, the source of energy being fuel cells or nuclear. Casings to line the drill hole could be of carbon composite to save weight and reduce the need for handling equipment. Transporting steel pipe to Mars borders on the unimaginable. An electric motor driven pump and discharge line would then be lowered down the well casing to submerge the pump in the acquifer.

            Running a pipeline from the well to the settlement has its own set of problems, mainly to prevent freezing. Insulation will not be enough, and burying the pipeline could be ineffective. Possibly something could be learned from the utilities management in far north Earth cities like Vladivostok or Fairbanks, Alaska.

          Could children be born and raised in the Martisn environment? The answer is that nobody knows. Without cosmic ray shielding.... probably not. A second open question is what kind of human would be produced, growing up in a gravity field 38% of Earth’s gravity? Is the human body shaped and sized to a significant degree by the strength of Earth’s gravity? How could you know, other than conducting an unthinkable experiment with newborns aboard the International Space Station?

           I could go on, but it is just as well to conclude with these thoughts: I think you can see that there are no serious driving forces for colonizing Mars or even visiting it. Robots are capable of exploring, providing video coverage, sampling, analyzing and transmission of information at an acceptabe cost. With advancements in artificial intelligence, they will be able to make decisions. That is about the most that would be expected of human explorers, at enormous cost for crew accomodations, crew training, ultra large launch vehicles, Mars surface accomodations and exploration vehicles and return rockets......some of it at high risk to human life. The cost could be prohibitive. The problems are nearly insurmountable. There is little visible payoff that cannot be obtained robotically, and success is doubtful, just as many settlements on Earth have failed and had to be abandoned.
       Just think, Trill. Ten European settlements failed in North America before Jamestown!