New research confirms: Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids
Tim Cavanaugh | September 17, 2006, 10:48pm
Hard questions for manned space travel buffs. The usually chipper Discover magazine gave its June cover to the grim topic "Are We Trapped On Earth?" a roundup of recent research on the hazards of long-term space travel by aerospace legacy MG Lord. The story is online now, and the catalogue of hardships is a regular frozen o-ring of bad mojo: solar flares, cosmic rays that can't even be shielded by lead, delta radiation; massive brain cell loss; astronauts coming down with shingles and cataracts; expired pharmaceuticals; and a whole lot more. Featuring a psychedelic brain damage trip with Fightin' Buzz Aldrin. Outside the protection of the Earth's magnetic field (less the South Atlantic Anomaly, or Brazilian Wax), such classic astrobiological challenges as zero-g nausea and bone tissue loss start to seem like kids' stuff.
Read the whole article. There's beaucoup NASA cooperation on this piece, and the space agency is now thumping the tub for bases on the moon and Mars, so the tone is one of can-do readiness. Many (though not all) sources look at all these challenges and declare, "With an armload of this stuff, I wouldn't be afraid of a supernova!" Possible solutions include speeding up spacecraft; sending up Space Cowboys so old nobody will miss them when they succumb; selecting astronauts with better genetic odds for radiation-resistance (a potential growth area for Hiroshima survivors and their descendants); and my favorite: genetically engineering mutant astronauts who can deal with it all. Most of the proposed solutions are pretty far out there (like the president's unserious and unfunded proposal to go to Mars); more important, they're far in the future. All of which supports my belief that for the time being space nuts, and particularly those who are not spending their own money, should focus on unmanned exploration. As always, contrary opinions are welcome.
James Anderson Merritt | September 18, 2006, 12:21am | #
In discussions I have heard on the topic of the harsh environment of interplanetary space (most recently, via the Scientific American podcast, at www.sciam.com), people say that it is indeed possible for insulation and magnetic/electrostatic shielding to make an interplanetary spacecraft habitable over the long haul, but that the cost of putting such a craft in space would be prohibitive, because its size and mass would be so enormous.
So why not build the interplanetary craft in space, and never have it land on or take off from a planet? Think of the interplanetary craft as the big cruise ship and the planetary landers as the launches used to get passengers to and from shore. The "mother ship" would have all the serious (and massive) protection for the crew; the landers would count on a planet's own local magnetic field or other close-in characteristics to protect the crew while away from the big ship.
It's not as if we haven't seen this kind of stuff in science fiction for many years. It was realized long ago that single, multipurpose crafts, suitable for both long-haul travel as well as planetary landing and takeoff, were impractical. Even the starship Enterprise was originally specified as never landing on a planet, and as having been constructed in space. So why is today's debate proceeding as if the multi-vehicle strategy had been considered or rejected -- or was never considered at all?
If we're serious about interplanetary exploration, we better get busy, putting some kind of manufacturing ability in Earth orbit. We better get busy, fetching raw materials from asteroids, or at least sending them up to the "factory" on the installment plan.
As an aside, I heard Elton John sing a jam-band version of "Rocket Man" in San Jose last night, and I only wish he would release that version on an album. It was, for lack of a better word, "cosmic."
Elmo | September 18, 2006, 2:56am | #
Not to be a stick in the mud, but rather a more curious/cautious adventurer type, I'm not convinced it's time to go to Mars just yet.
I used to think space travel would be the ultimate "trip". I recently saw some things that cause me to want a lot more, as in a "whole lot" more study.
The scientists are mixed on whether or not there was ever water on Mars. Water as we know it is the prime element necessary for life.
I believe water is ruled out as currently being a "known" on Mars. But dust storms are definitely known to be there. One recent National Geographic presentation showed dust storms covering the entire planet at times.
We have dust storms here on earth, also. The same NG presentation showed that a few years ago one dust storm that began over the Sahara desert was followed by satellite photography until it dissipated over the Arctic. On the way it dumped dust on England, and six days later they began slaughtering cattle by the millions after the dust storm deposited hoof and mouth disease on the cattle industry there. I had read before that there were places people were being banned from on account of hoof and mouth disease, but I had never known the source of the disease until I saw the National Geographic presentation. Nor do I know how long people are banned from the affected areas. I can imagine that an area where millions, (as many as 10 million), cows had to be slaughtered is not a small mom and pop farm operation.
Who knows but maybe Mad Cow disease is spread the same way. How about Bird Flu? I'm sure they are working on it. Whatever they're doing, I hope they're hurrying to get some answers.
If our dust storms can spread that sort of bacterial life here on earth, I'd be a bit skittish about sending a person to visit a planet that once had life, but had it disappear and leave only dust. I'd like to know what may be "in" that dust.
So, I'd say, as attractive as it seems, and with all the commotion urging the effort on, before we invest human life, and the necessary support requirements for a human trip to Mars, let's first send up some round trip probes, and study some samples.. . . lot's of samples.
And the lab to do the study might well be on a space station to determine whether it is compatible with our own eco system here on earth. Who knows, maybe there's something up there just waiting to get wet agan so it can take over the earth in it's rejuvenated form.
If we can send landers to the moon and other planets, surely we can send up a round trip version to at least get some air samples as a starting point.
It may be that we will find out that we don't "really" want to send anybody up there after all.
James Anderson Merritt | September 18, 2006, 6:20pm | #
Cavanaugh says, "Again, if the need for human living space is motivating space exploration, we should start settling people in Antarctica, in the middle of the Sahara, above the treeline in the Himalayas, at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, or inside active volcanoes. All these places are absolute paradises for human life compared to every known place off the planet."
Not just living space, Tim. And not space for everyone. One's own space, a place where those who won't live like cattle will go, braving the dangers, and taking their chances with hostile nature, as long as they get to call their own shots. In a planet of several billion people, there are quite a few of them. Some might actually WANT to colonize Antactica, the sea floor, and other difficult places on Earth. But who would let them? Don't you think the environmental lobby (not to mention the academic research lobby) would quash serious attempts to settle Antartica or the floors of the Atlantic or Pacific? No matter where a would-be settlement might go on earth, there won't be a site selection that won't be disputed by SOMEONE. In that case, you'd have TWO major problems: the engineering problem of ensuring survival in a hostile environment, and the political problem of ensuring that some mob or government or other doesn't sabotage your plans. Often, the latter is the harder problem to solve, which is one reason many of our ancestors left well-settled Europe to go to the wilds of America. They figured one problem was enough.
An important point of opening up new frontier is that one doesn't expect to run into anybody. In space, unless we run into aliens, all of the resources and real estate will be up for grabs. That is another powerful motivation to leave the relatively safe confines of a volcanic caldera or one's tent in the Sahara, and venture out into space.
The Frontier is an important pressure safety-valve for society. But in this era of globe-encircling communications and jurisdictions, even inhospitable areas aren't exactly "the frontier" anymore. Space still is.
Ghenghis Kahn | September 19, 2006, 2:03am | #
Interesting post Tim.
These guys need to figure out how to get 100 miles up in some reliable way�after which, as Heinlein said, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system.
That depends a lot on a) how fast you're going when you reach the 100 mile mark and b) how old you are at that moment. As you said, the moon is a trip to the bathroom compared to Mars. I haven't seen a warp drive lately, or a manual explaining exactly how I might go about "engaging" one if I found it.
Heinlein can say whatever the hell he pleases, but the truth is that once you're 100 miles up, you're half way to being 200 miles up (and the moon is how far?). The physics of propulsion become a whole different animal. Along with the physics of everything else you might want to do. You can't even
pee the same way up there.
And remind me why it is that we have trouble making solar collectors work above the atmosphere for any length of time. I think it's something about the materials keep breaking down due to the types and intensity of the radiation. Much we have to learn about The Force, we do.
Let the private space guys continue doing their thing, and see if they can get anything going toward a more substantial version of space travel. (They're not as close to it as people like to think.)
Amen to both of those.
Get NASA out of manned space travel entirely, but give them a generous budget to keep doing unmanned exploration.
You have a lot more faith in them than I do. Since the Apollo missions ended, their only redeeming virtue has been their capacity to do root cause investigations of commercial airline crashes. A much needed service indeed, and one I'm afraid they aren't sure they should be doing anymore, so they aren't giving it whole hearted support these days.
If you want to get anything useful out of NASA, the first thing that has to happen is that Congress must tell them (under penalty of "....or else, no more federal funding") exactly what they are and aren't supposed to be doing.
Your idea of how to delimit their space mission isn't so bad, though I have little faith in their capacity to innovate by now. They're much better at failure analysis today than anything else I've seen them doing. And that's left over from the days when they were NACA.
But then, I've always thought the word "aerospace" was an oxymoron. Aerodynamics and outer space have virtually nothing in common, and if you're actually trained to be good at one, you probably don't know jack about the other.
Just sending more one-shot capsules so we can get "out there" seems to me like jumping out the window before you've looked around to see if there's a door.
Now that's a curious thing to say. Satallites and drones do send back huge data streams. The idea that somewhere up there we might find some nasty microbes or worse, isn't so very far fetched. I'd much prefer sending up a drone that does the one-way thing, and learn via data stream, then bring them back home unwittingly.
I'm all for space travel but I think the reality is a long way off, and it's going to be risky business for a long time once it really commences.
Here's to the Space Vikings, whatever colored hair they end up having (
naturally), and whatever they come up with to drink.
Ghenghis Kahn | September 19, 2006, 2:33am | #
You want to know the truth about government research labs? They spend a lot of their time running around the country looking for somebody else's ideas (including each other's) to go do something with. I have my own little theory as to why they're stagnant pools by themselves.
In the early days of NASA, when they were building Apollos, they were also drawing on a pool of science and engineering talent that had had no choice but to survive in a free market. That constraint was a better final exam than anything a professor has ever come up with (and I could be an engineering professor if I wanted, so do let me throw the first stone).
Early NASA used people from an age where most R&D was still happening in private industry. But about the time NASA was flying their last Apollos, was also about the time that government grants to academia started taking over R&D in a big way. There is an inverse correlation over time between the amount of R&D that happens in academia, versus what happens in private industry. Today industry does little of none (relative to 50 years ago) and most of it is academic. Or government labs, the extension thereof (and which today spend much of their R&D funds on academia anyway).
Most academic professors have never had to survive in private industry, and many are proud of it. They wouldn't dream of doing anything so mundane.
Exactly how the government funded system has changed the mentality of both scientists and engineers, I can't pretend to explain. I finished my PhD in '95 so my personal time line is too short. But I know there's a fundamental difference in mentality (and, I believe, capability and innovation) between academic professors, and the PhDs like myself who've chosen private industry instead.
There are some bright and innovative academic professors, to be sure. But the forest of dead wood that comes with them is substantial. The academics don't
have to be personally innovative, yet they can still climb to the top ranks of their fields. In industry you won't get away with that crap.
I think, the problem is that we've got a lot more dead wood around the science and engineering community today than we did in 1965. Largely due to government take over of R&D.
