# data[].attributes.headline
Intel Gathering (5 Hazards of Human Spaceflight) - Huan Ho

# data[].attributes.subject
Intel Gathering (5 Hazards of Human Spaceflight) - Huan Ho

# data[].attributes.body
NASA Human Research Program organized 5 hazards that astronauts will meet during spaceflight. For human in the future who is not fully trained as astronauts, it might be way more harder for them to adjust these hazards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A human journey to Mars, at first glance, offers an inexhaustible amount of complexities. To bring a mission to the Red Planet from fiction to fact, NASA's Human Research Program has organized hazards astronauts will encounter on a continual basis into five classifications.

# data[].attributes.body
Gavin Mindt
This article describes a plan created by scientist to send a robot to the red planet to begin building a self sustaining research base. They would establish the base on the North Pole of mars due to the available resources there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study reveals how humans could potentially colonize Mars and create a self-sustaining research base that could support manned missions for several years.

Scientists at Switzerland's Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne ( EPFL) came up with a multi-step plan, which involves sending a robot to the Red Planet to build the base, using the planet's natural resources to maintain it, and sending a crew to its surface.

The researchers propose setting up a base at the north pole of Mars due to the natural resources in that region.

"The poles may pose more challenges in the beginning, but they are the best location for the long term since they harbor natural resources that we may be able to use," Anne-Marlene Ruede, lead author of the study, said in a statement.
NASA WILL LAUNCH 2 ROCKETS TO TEST A MARS PARACHUTE
Ruede continued: "We wanted to develop a strategy based on technologies that have been selected accordingly and outline a test scenario so that 20 years from now, astronauts will be able to carry out this kind of mission."

Their plans follows a NASA competition calling for different teams to submit 3-D printed habitats that they believe could be used to colonize Mars in the future.

The research base would consist of three different modules, according to scientists, and is described as a "minimal living space."

A dome made of polyethylene fiber and a three-meter thick layer of ice would cover the structure, giving it the appearance of an igloo.

"The dome would also represent an additional living space, provide a second barrier to protect the crew against radiation and micrometeoroids, and help keep the pressure constant inside the base," according to the study.
NASA'S $1 MILLION MARS-SETTLING CHALLENGE, REVEALED
Additionally, researchers envision a crane system that would orbit the Red Planet to serve as a transfer point for goods between shuttles coming up from Earth.

However, before sending any humans to Mars, a robot crew would build the base and test all the available natural resources.

The researchers believe that the poles would be the most likely place to build a base, as traces of life are most likely to be found in 'layered deposits' of ice and dust near the poles.

"All that would make the research base self-sustaining for the long haul," the study noted.

Christopher Carbone is a reporter and news editor covering science and technology for FoxNews.com. He can be reached at christopher.carbone@foxnews.com. Follow him on Twitter @christocarbone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Future Mars colonies? Scientists sketch out research bases that could take root on the Red Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study reveals how humans could potentially colonize Mars and create a self-sustaining research base that could support manned missions for several years. Scientists at Switzerland's Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne ( EPFL) came up with a multi-step plan, which involves sending a robot to the Red Planet to build the base, using the planet's natural resources to maintain it, and sending a crew to its surface.

# data[].attributes.body
https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8357/nasa-statement-on-possible-subsurface-lake-near-martian-south-pole/

This article describes a new discovery of a possible unfrozen lake on Mars and how scientists plan to study it within the future. They talk about this "bright spot" seen with a contraption called a MARSIS and about further information gathered. Overall this is an essential need of life so they are inferring that colonization might take a tiny step forward.

# data[].attributes.headline
Updated Colonization Plan for SpaceX (published 8-29-18) Jackson Wallerick

# data[].attributes.subject
Updated Colonization Plan for SpaceX (published 8-29-18) Jackson Wallerick

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes the updated plan for SpaceX's colonization efforts. They plan to send the first two unmanned ships to Mars in 2022 that will stay on the surface and act as temporary housing for future explorers, followed by four more ships being launched (two of them manned) in 2024.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We all are aware of SpaceX's ambitious plan to put humans on Mars and colonize the red planet. The project, first announced in 2016, revolves around the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) that the company is building for transporting humans and cargo between Earth and Mars.

Last year at the International Astronautical Congress (IAC), SpaceX boss Elon Musk detailed how the BFRs would be fueled and used to establish the human presence on Mars, and now, the company's Principal Mars Development Engineer Paul Wooster has given us more insight into that effort.

Speaking at the 2018 Mars Society Convention on Aug. 25, Wooster reiterated the deadlines the company targets to launch the first unmanned and manned missions to the Martian surface. SpaceX will launch two uncrewed cargo BFRs in 2022 and then launch follow-up missions with four more rockets two years later.

The first mission, with two BFRs, will deliver critical infrastructure for colonization and identify potential resources and hazards. Then, in 2024, four BFRs, two of which would be manned, will be used to take more equipment and supplies and the first colonists to the red planet.

In the 30-minute-long talk, Wooster stressed on the technical aspects of first Martian landing and the factors required to be considered for picking a site to establish a self-sustaining Martian colony. However, the most interesting part of the presentation was the fact that the first BFR spacecraft with life-support systems are likely to stay on the planet, providing the first colonizers a place to live.

"Early on, they're very valuable on the surface of Mars," Wooster said in the presentation, CNET reported. "You'd actually be having most of the ships stay and you'd be operating using the various systems on them to support the activities there. Very much early on they'd be sitting there indefinitely."

Until now, it wasn't clear how the first Mars visitors would begin building the habitats, but this indicates they would likely operate out of the BFR spacecraft while setting up an initial base and landing pads for a robust, full-fledged Martian city. The first habitats would be built by using power generated from solar arrays and once that's done, a local propellant product plant will be set up using carbon dioxide and water, which will eventually lead to mineral mining and terraforming our neighboring planet.

The BFRs' ability to carry as much as 150 tons of cargo would aid the development and expansion of a colony on Mars. However, it still remains to be seen if the development and test flights of the rocket remain on track for first flights in 2022.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SpaceX Mars Colonization Plan: BFR Spaceships To House First Martian Settlers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We all are aware of SpaceX's ambitious plan to put humans on Mars and colonize the red planet. The project, first announced in 2016, revolves around the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) that the company is building for transporting humans and cargo between Earth and Mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Science fiction writers have long featured terraforming, the process of creating an Earth-like or habitable environment on another planet, in their stories. Scientists themselves have proposed terraforming to enable the long-term colonization of Mars. A solution common to both groups is to release carbon dioxide gas trapped in the Martian surface to thicken the atmosphere and act as a blanket to warm the planet.

However, Mars does not retain enough carbon dioxide that could practically be put back into the atmosphere to warm Mars, according to a new NASA-sponsored study. Transforming the inhospitable Martian environment into a place astronauts could explore without life support is not possible without technology well beyond today's capabilities.

This infographic shows the various sources of carbon dioxide on Mars and their estimated contribution to Martian atmospheric pressure. Credits: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
More download options ›

Although the current Martian atmosphere itself consists mostly of carbon dioxide, it is far too thin and cold to support liquid water, an essential ingredient for life. On Mars, the pressure of the atmosphere is less than one percent of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere. Any liquid water on the surface would very quickly evaporate or freeze.

Proponents of terraforming Mars propose releasing gases from a variety of sources on the Red Planet to thicken the atmosphere and increase the temperature to the point where liquid water is stable on the surface. These gases are called "greenhouse gases" for their ability to trap heat and warm the climate.

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are the only greenhouse gases that are likely to be present on Mars in sufficient abundance to provide any significant greenhouse warming," said Bruce Jakosky of the University of Colorado, Boulder, lead author of the study appearing in Nature Astronomy July 30.

Although studies investigating the possibility of terraforming Mars have been made before, the new result takes advantage of about 20 years of additional spacecraft observations of Mars. "These data have provided substantial new information on the history of easily vaporized (volatile) materials like CO2 and H2O on the planet, the abundance of volatiles locked up on and below the surface, and the loss of gas from the atmosphere to space," said co-author Christopher Edwards of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

The researchers analyzed the abundance of carbon-bearing minerals and the occurrence of CO2 in polar ice using data from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and used data on the loss of the Martian atmosphere to space by NASA's MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) spacecraft.

"Our results suggest that there is not enough CO2 remaining on Mars to provide significant greenhouse warming were the gas to be put into the atmosphere; in addition, most of the CO2 gas is not accessible and could not be readily mobilized. As a result, terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology," said Jakosky.

Although Mars has significant quantities of water ice that could be used to create water vapor, previous analyses show that water cannot provide significant warming by itself; temperatures do not allow enough water to persist as vapor without first having significant warming by CO2, according to the team. Also, while other gases such as the introduction of chloroflorocarbons or other fluorine-based compounds have been proposed to raise the atmospheric temperature, these gases are short-lived and would require large-scale manufacturing processes, so they were not considered in the current study.

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is around 0.6 percent of Earth's. With Mars being further away from the Sun, researchers estimate a CO2 pressure similar to Earth's total atmospheric pressure is needed to raise temperatures enough to allow for stable liquid water. The most accessible source is CO2 in the polar ice caps; it could be vaporized by spreading dust on it to absorb more solar radiation or by using explosives. However, vaporizing the ice caps would only contribute enough CO2 to double the Martian pressure to 1.2 percent of Earth's, according to the new analysis.

Another source is CO2 attached to dust particles in Martian soil, which could be heated to release the gas. The researchers estimate that heating the soil could provide up to 4 percent of the needed pressure. A third source is carbon locked in mineral deposits. Using the recent NASA spacecraft observations of mineral deposits, the team estimates the most plausible amount will yield less than 5 percent of the required pressure, depending on how extensive deposits buried close to the surface may be. Just using the deposits near the surface would require extensive strip mining, and going after all the CO2 attached to dust particles would require strip mining the entire planet to a depth of around 100 yards. Even CO2 trapped in water-ice molecule structures, should such "clathrates" exist on Mars, would likely contribute less than 5 percent of the required pressure, according to the team.

Carbon-bearing minerals buried deep in the Martian crust might hold enough CO2 to reach the required pressure, but the extent of these deep deposits is unknown, not evidenced by orbital data, and recovering them with current technology is extremely energy intensive, requiring temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (over 572 degrees Fahrenheit). Shallow carbon-bearing minerals are not sufficiently abundant to contribute significantly to greenhouse warming, and also require the same intense processing.

Although the surface of Mars is inhospitable to known forms of life today, features that resemble dry riverbeds and mineral deposits that only form in the presence of liquid water provide evidence that, in the distant past, the Martian climate supported liquid water at the surface. But solar radiation and solar wind can remove both water vapor and CO2 from the Martian atmosphere. Both MAVEN and the European Space Agency's Mars Express missions indicate that the majority of Mars' ancient, potentially habitable atmosphere has been lost to space, stripped away by solar wind and radiation. Of course, once this happens, that water and CO2 are gone forever. Even if this loss were prevented somehow, allowing the atmosphere to build up slowly from outgassing by geologic activity, current outgassing is extremely low; it would take about 10 million years just to double Mars' current atmosphere, according to the team.

Another idea is to import volatiles by redirecting comets and asteroids to hit Mars. However, the team's calculations reveal that many thousands would be required; again, not very practical.

Taken together, the results indicate that terraforming Mars cannot be done with currently available technology. Any such efforts have to be very far into the future.

This research was supported in part by NASA through the MAVEN and Mars Odyssey THEMIS (Thermal Emission Imaging System) projects.

Bill Steigerwald / Nancy Jones
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
301-286-8955 / 301-286-0039
william.a.steigerwald@nasa.gov / nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars Terraforming Not Possible Using Present-Day Technology - NASA's Mars Exploration Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Science fiction writers have long featured terraforming, the process of creating an Earth-like or habitable environment on another planet, in their stories. Scientists themselves have proposed terraforming to enable the long-term colonization of Mars. A solution common to both groups is to release carbon dioxide gas trapped in the Martian surface to thicken the atmosphere and act as a blanket to warm the planet.

# data[].attributes.body
SpaceX has proposed the possibility of using the first few BFR's as habitable living spaces to leave on mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Speaking at the 2018 Mars Society Convention, SpaceX's Principal Mars Development Engineer Paul Wooster briefly presented on the company's BFR and Mars colony ambitions.

While the majority of the 30-minute talk rehashed CEO Elon Musk's 2017 BFR update and subsequent Reddit AMA, it also happened to contain a handful of new details and slides, including a suggestion that the first BFR spaceships to land on Mars will stay on the Red Planet as temporary habitats or tools for early colonists.

SpaceX Mars architecture features pic.twitter.com/IHOLCbbvRS

- Maxime Lenormand (@MaxLenormand) August 25, 2018

This is you, uncompromised.

The senior engineer reiterated the company's aspirational Martian launch targets, featuring two uncrewed cargo BFRs in 2022 and four total BFRs in 2024, two crewed and two uncrewed. Whether or not the lack of change in those dates (provided by Wooster nearly a year after CEO Elon Musk's identical date reveal in September 2017) asserts that SpaceX's BFR and Mars research and development remains on track, it almost certainly confirms that the company's incredibly aggressive targets are here to stay.

Graciously documented by Reddit users /u/theinternetftw and /u/Nehkara and European Space Agency intern Maxime Lenormand, at least partially alleviating the unbelievably atrocious webcast quality, Wooster offered attendees a slightly deeper glimpse into the extensive in-depth planning going on behind the scenes at SpaceX. Almost all of the new slides Wooster presented focused heavily on the technical side of actually planning to create a self-sustaining Martian colony, ranging from locations for any prospective colony to the types of skillsets that would be exceptionally invaluable in early colonists.

And here are some additional considerations pic.twitter.com/jdVJglfHCG

- Maxime Lenormand (@MaxLenormand) August 25, 2018

At this point, it's entirely possible that SpaceX's internal team of Mars-focused engineers and experts has already begun to approach or even surpass the detail and value of previous theoretical Martian colonization research from the likes of NASA, ESA, and other space agencies and companies. Still, SpaceX has made it eminently clear that it wants and likely needs to collaborate with independent experts on Mars, life support systems, construction, resource extraction and refinement, and more.

A private Mars workshop recently hosted by SpaceX - likely the first of many to come - evidenced that desire to collaborate with companies, agencies, and researchers that have already put years of effort into analyzing and answering the same questions SpaceX will need to answer to successfully build a sustainable city on Mars

Perhaps the most interesting detail to come out of Wooster's August 25th talk, however, was the slight affirmation that SpaceX is seriously thinking about leaving the first landed BFR spaceships on Mars indefinitely, although it's not entirely clear which spaceships he was referring to. According to paraphrased notes taken from the webcast, early BFR spaceships on the Martian surface would remain there to be used as resources (habitats). He subsequently noted that early colonists would "probably" live out of the first landed spaceships, to begin with, suggesting that the uncrewed, cargo-dedicated spaceships would still return to Earth, as they will not feature human-rated life support systems of any of the necessities for living.

Still, multiple other slides in Wooster's presentation make it clear that the goal from the very beginning of the first BFRs to Mars is to expand living space and infrastructure as quickly as possible, paving the way for the arrival of more and more colonists. It's extremely likely that a significant number of skilled colonists will be needed to ensure that the colony remains healthy and safe, while also guaranteeing that it can sustainably grow as rapidly as feasible.

Plans are for sending the first 2 cargos as soon as 2022! pic.twitter.com/A5y3HNpIOx

- Maxime Lenormand (@MaxLenormand) August 25, 2018

Even though it certainly wasn't the "BFR update" Musk suggested was coming soon, Wooster's presentation provided the best glimpse yet into the extensive analysis and planning SpaceX is undertaking to discern how exactly to best structure its very first colony-focused launches to Mars.

For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX's rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SpaceX wants to use the first Mars-bound BFR spaceships as Martian habitats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speaking at the 2018 Mars Society Convention, SpaceX's Principal Mars Development Engineer Paul Wooster briefly presented on the company's BFR and Mars colony ambitions. While the majority of the 30-minute talk rehashed CEO Elon Musk's 2017 BFR update and subsequent Reddit AMA, it also happened to contain a handful of new details and slides, including a ...

# data[].attributes.headline
NASA considers corporate sponsors to boost revenue

# data[].attributes.subject
NASA considers corporate sponsors to boost revenue

# data[].attributes.body
Sean Hagen
Amid low budgets NASA considers letting Corporations have naming rights or logos on spacecraft. Federal rules currently prohibit this, but that may change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an era of flat budgets for the agency, Jim Bridenstine has started talking about corporate sponsorships for NASA missions.

Image

A self-portrait of NASA's Curiosity Mars rover in June. Credit Credit Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Jim Bridenstine, NASA's administrator, posed a question two weeks ago.

"Is it possible for NASA to offset some of its costs by selling the naming rights to its spacecraft?" he asked during to a meeting of a council that advises NASA. "Or the naming rights to its rockets? I'm telling you, there is interest in that right now."

Don't expect to see astronauts in Coca-Cola commercials any time soon, or NASA's Mars rover rebranded as Curiosity, brought to you by Aflac. But Mr. Bridenstine has asked a committee of the NASA Advisory Council to explore whether it might be done, despite regulations or laws that seem to prohibit such activities. He also raised the possibility of allowing NASA astronauts to sign endorsement deals.

"The question is: is it possible?" Mr. Bridenstine said in remarks that were broadcast on NASA TV and have been debated in press accounts since then. "And the answer is, I don't know."

The proposal by NASA's new administrator comes at a time when the Trump administration has lofty goals in space, but hasn't asked Congress for a lot of money to pay for them. President Trump established a National Space Council last year, led by Vice President Mike Pence, and wants to return to the moon. But the administration's budget proposals suggest that financing for NASA will remain flat through 2023.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Bridenstine pointed to the rockets taking cargo to the International Space Station. "We have branding opportunities right there," he said.

Perhaps NASA astronauts could beckon to children from cereal boxes like sports stars, or help raise awareness of NASA's missions, embedding the agency in popular culture and helping spur children to pursue careers in space, he said.

But some critics worry that a decision by NASA to make endorsement and branding deals could create conflicts of interest and diminish the agency's stature and public mission.

"Companies being able to sponsor rockets or astronauts really calls into question who's really calling the shots," said Timothy Farnsworth, a spokesman for the Project on Government Oversight, an independent government watchdog. "If astronauts are receiving compensation from corporations with business before NASA it could create the appearance of divided loyalty between a private company and public service."

Typically, federal employees are prohibited from endorsing commercial projects. Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump, was accused of violating government ethics rules last year when she told people to "go buy Ivanka's stuff," endorsing the clothing and jewelry of Ivanka Trump.

The Onion, the humor publication, weighed in on the subject 14 years ago: "Coke-Sponsored Rover Finds Evidence of Dasani on Mars."

NASA's own documents appear to prohibit such activities. A webpage from the agency's general counsel office states: "The rule is simple: we may not use our public office for private gain. This includes our own private gain, or that of anyone else."

It adds, "Federal employees may not endorse through their government positions, titles, or other authority the products, services, or activities of nonfederal entities."

In the interview, Mr. Bridenstine acknowledged that federal employees are generally not allowed to endorse products, but said the committee would explore possible exceptions that would allow NASA astronauts to do so. He noted that soon there will be astronauts employed by commercial companies like SpaceX and Boeing who will not be fettered by the traditional restrictions that apply to federal employees.

The military has trouble retaining pilots who can earn more and work less flying commercial jetliners, he said. "We could end up spending millions of dollars training each astronaut only to have them go work for someone else as soon as they're trained," he said.

Because NASA does not operate the rockets going to the space station, the agency might not get a cut of the branding revenue, but the rocket company could then make a lower bid on what it charged NASA, Mr. Bridenstine said. The cargo missions are operated, under commercial contracts with NASA, by SpaceX and Northrop Grumman.

The committee is likely to make recommendations at the next quarterly meeting of the NASA advisory council, he said.

[Sign up to get reminders for space and astronomy events on your calendar.]
Companies have long tried to tap marketing opportunities in outer space. From 1968 to 1971, Pan Am issued more than 93,000 cards for its First Moon Flights Club. In 2000, the Pizza Hut logo appeared on a Russian rocket, and the following year, a Radio Shack commercial featured Russian astronauts aboard the International Space Station opening a Father's Day gift.

"It's ironic that Russia is ahead of us in taking advantage of commercial activities on the International Space Station," Mr. Bridenstine said.

More recently, KFC said in a promotion that it was sending a fried chicken sandwich to space on a high-altitude balloon. (It only reached the stratosphere, which is below the 62-mile altitude that is generally regarded as the boundary of outer space.)

In the past few years, NASA has made a bigger push to bring capitalism to the International Space Station, opening up opportunities for companies to conduct research there and hiring commercial companies for transportation of cargo and astronauts. Privatization of the station has been discussed and debated.

Branding and advertising are among the next steps, Mr. Bridenstine said, that future commercial space stations might tap into. "This is yet another opportunity to prove out a market."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Branded Rockets and Astronauts on Cereal Boxes. NASA Chief Asks, 'Is It Possible?'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an era of flat budgets for the agency, Jim Bridenstine has started talking about corporate sponsorships for NASA missions. Jim Bridenstine, NASA's administrator, posed a question two weeks ago. "Is it possible for NASA to offset some of its costs by selling the naming rights to its spacecraft?"

# data[].attributes.body
EPFL scientists have outline a plan for the colonization of mars. This plan begins with building a base, then bringing the crew later on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists sketch out the foundations of a colony on Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EPFL scientists have mapped out the steps required to build a self-sustaining research base on Mars that would be habitable for the long term. Their work can help researchers set priorities for space programs exploring Mars ...

# data[].attributes.body
This most significant aspect of this article is that more and more sunlight is piercing through the haze on Mars. This will allow the rover, Opportunity, to recharge its batteries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientists reviewing data from the Mars Color Imager (MARCI) aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) have determined that the tau estimate (a measure of the amount of haze in the Martian atmosphere) in the skies above the rover Opportunity has been below 1.5 for two consecutive measurements. With more sunlight reaching the rover's solar array, the Opportunity team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, are increasing the frequency of commands it beams to the 14-plus-year-old rover via the dishes of NASA's Deep Space Network from three times a week to multiple times per day. Passive listening for Opportunity will also continue to be performed by JPL's Radio Science Group, which records radio signals emanating from Mars with a very sensitive broadband receiver.

The original story has been updated in paragraph six to reflect NASA review at each step of the recovery process. Updates on the 2018 dust storm and tau can be found here.
Original story posted August 30, 2018

Opportunity's panoramic camera (Pancam) took the component images for this view from a position outside Endeavor Crater during the span of June 7 to June 19, 2017. Toward the right side of this scene is a broad notch in the crest of the western rim of crater. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/Arizona State Univ. Full image and caption ›

A planet-encircling dust storm on Mars, which was first detected May 30 and halted operations for the Opportunity rover, continues to abate.

With clearing skies over Opportunity's resting spot in Mars' Perseverance Valley, engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, believe the nearly 15-year-old, solar-powered rover will soon receive enough sunlight to automatically initiate recovery procedures -- if the rover is able to do so. To prepare, the Opportunity mission team has developed a two-step plan to provide the highest probability of successfully communicating with the rover and bringing it back online.

"The Sun is breaking through the haze over Perseverance Valley, and soon there will be enough sunlight present that Opportunity should be able to recharge its batteries," said John Callas, Opportunity project manager at JPL. "When the tau level [a measure of the amount of particulate matter in the Martian sky] dips below 1.5, we will begin a period of actively attempting to communicate with the rover by sending it commands via the antennas of NASA's Deep Space Network. Assuming that we hear back from Opportunity, we will begin the process of discerning its status and bringing it back online."

The rover's last communication with Earth was received June 10, and Opportunity's current health is unknown. Opportunity engineers are relying on the expertise of Mars scientists analyzing data from the Mars Color Imager (MARCI) aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) to estimate the tau near the rover's position.

"The dust haze produced by the Martian global dust storm of 2018 is one of the most extensive on record, but all indications are it is finally coming to a close," said MRO Project Scientist Rich Zurek at JPL. "MARCI images of the Opportunity site have shown no active dust storms for some time within 3,000 kilometers [about 1,900 miles] of the rover site."

With skies clearing, mission managers are hopeful the rover will attempt to call home, but they are also prepared for an extended period of silence. "If we do not hear back after 45 days, the team will be forced to conclude that the Sun-blocking dust and the Martian cold have conspired to cause some type of fault from which the rover will more than likely not recover," said Callas. At that point, the team will report to NASA HQ to determine whether to continue with the strategy or adjust it. Callas added, "In the unlikely chance that there is a large amount of dust sitting on the solar arrays that is blocking the Sun's energy, we will continue passive listening efforts for several months."

The additional several months for passive listening are an allowance for the possibility that a Red Planet dust devil could come along and literally dust off Opportunity's solar arrays. Such "cleaning events" were first discovered by Mars rover teams in 2004 when, on several occasions, battery power levels aboard both Spirit and Opportunity increased by several percent during a single Martian night, when the logical expectation was that they would continue to decrease. These cleaning dust devils have even been imaged by both rovers on the surface and spacecraft in orbit (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8lfJ0c7WQ8 and https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/5307/the-serpent-dust-devil-of-mars/).

The chances are small that dust accumulation would be the root cause of Opportunity's lack of communication. Nonetheless, each day during the passive phase, JPL's Radio Science group will scour the signal records taken by a very sensitive broadband receiver of radio frequencies emanating from Mars, looking for a sign that the rover is trying to reach out.

Even if the team hears back from Opportunity during either phase, there is no assurance the rover will be operational. The impact of this latest storm on Opportunity's systems is unknown but could have resulted in reduced energy production, diminished battery performance, or other unforeseen damage that could make it difficult for the rover to fully return online.

While the situation in Perseverance Valley is critical, the rover team is cautiously optimistic, knowing that Opportunity has overcome significant challenges during its 14-plus years on Mars. The rover lost use of its front steering -- its left-front in June of 2017, and right front in 2005. Its 256-megabyte flash memory is no longer functioning. The team also knows that everything about the rover is well beyond its warranty period -- both Opportunity and its twin rover, Spirit, were constructed for 90-day missions (Spirit lasted 20 times longer and Opportunity is going on 60 times). The rovers were designed to travel about 1,000 yards, and Opportunity has logged more than 28 miles. Through thick and thin, the team has seen their rover soldier on. Now, Opportunity engineers and scientists of Opportunity are planning, and hoping, that this latest dilemma is just another bump in their Martian road.

"In a situation like this you hope for the best but plan for all eventualities," said Callas. "We are pulling for our tenacious rover to pull her feet from the fire one more time. And if she does, we will be there to hear her."

Updates on the dust storm and tau can be found here.

JPL, a division of Caltech in Pasadena, built Opportunity and manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington.

For more information about Opportunity, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/rovers https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/ News media contacts
DC Agle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-9011
agle@jpl.nasa.gov

JoAnna Wendel
NASA Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1003
Joanna.r.wendel@nasa.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Martian Skies Clearing over Opportunity Rover - NASA's Mars Exploration Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists reviewing data from the Mars Color Imager (MARCI) aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) have determined that the tau estimate (a measure of the amount of haze in the Martian atmosphere) in the skies above the rover Opportunity has been below 1.5 for two consecutive measurements.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, scientists sketch what the future self-sustaining colonies that Elon Musk talked about could look like. Everything would be a minimalistic way of living for the houses and other buildings. They also described the potential of robots building at least some of it in advance instead of having to sustain humans while trying to build the thing that would sustain them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Swiss scientists developed a design for a self-sustaining research base on Mars that could sustain humans

Robots would build the base, which includes three modules: central core, living capsule, orbiting crane

Scientists describe it as a 'minimal living space' that would house all important materials and goods

A team of researchers have developed a plan for how humans could colonize Mars, the Moon or potentially any planet in the solar system.

In a new study, scientists from Switzerland's École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) designed a self-sustaining research base that could potentially support manned missions for several years at a time.

The multi-step plan involves sending a robot to Mars to build the base, harnessing the red planet's natural resources and ultimately sending a crew to its surface that could live there for at least nine months.

Scroll down for video

Like others have theorized before, EPFL scientists believe humans are most likely to find success setting up a base at the North pole of Mars.

Many experts, including tech billionaire Elon Musk, have suggested that Mars' poles are suitable for sustaining human life because they contain vital natural resources.

'The poles may pose more challenges in the beginning, but they are the best location for the long term since they harbor natural resources that we may be able to use,' Anne-Marlene Ruede, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

'We wanted to develop a strategy based on technologies that have been selected accordingly and outline a test scenario so that 20 years from now, astronauts will be able to carry out this kind of mission.'

Their plan envisions that the research base could one day support human colonies - something that would be developed over the next several generations.

It follows a NASA competition calling for teams to submit 3D-printed habitats that they believe could be used to colonize the red planet in the coming decades.

The research base would consist of three different modules, according to scientists.

The main fixture of the base would include a central core that's 12.5 meters high and five meters in diameter.

Scientists describe it as a 'minimal living space' that would house all important materials and goods.

Three living capsules would be attached to the core via airlocks.

Covering the space would be a dome made up of polyethylene fiber and a three-meter thick layer of ice, making it a pseudo-igloo structure.

'The dome would also represent an additional living space, provide a second barrier to protect the crew against radiation and micrometeoroids, and help keep the pressure constant inside the base,' according to the study.

Additionally, they envision creating a crane system that would orbit around Mars, serving as a transfer point for goods between shuttles coming up from Earth and the base on Mars.

It would be able to be reused up to six times and reduce the size of the payload sent from Earth between each trip.

'The vehicle's docking system would be similar to that used on the International Space Station: once a shuttle was docked, the vehicle would unload the cargo and crew and set them down on Mars,' the researchers noted.

Before sending a crew to the red planet's surface, they'd transport robots to Mars that could build the base before humans arrive.

The robots would also test natural resources available for use on site.

Once melted down, poles at the north and south of Mars are believed to be able to produce water, oxygen and nitrogen, which are all needed to support human life.

Other chemicals in Mars' air and materials in its soil are thought to be prime for construction of things like bricks, glass and plastic, or even fuels like hydrogen and methanol.

'All that would make the research base self-sustaining for the long haul, the study noted.

WHAT ARE NASA'S PLANS FOR A MANNED MISSION TO MARS IN THE 2030s?

Mars has become the next giant leap for mankind's exploration of space.

But before humans get to the red planet, astronauts will take a series of small steps by returning to the moon for a year-long mission.

Details of a the mission in lunar orbit have been unveiled as part of a timeline of events leading to missions to Mars in the 2030s.

In May 2017, Greg Williams, deputy associate administrator for policy and plans at Nasa, outlined the space agency's four stage plan that it hopes will one day allow humans to visit Mars, as well as its expected time-frame.

Phase one and two will involve multiple trips to lunar space, to allow for construction of a habitat which will provide a staging area for the journey.

The last piece of delivered hardware would be the actual Deep Space Transport vehicle that would later be used to carry a crew to Mars.

And a year-long simulation of life on Mars will be conducted in 2027.

Phase three and and four will begin after 2030 and will involve sustained crew expeditions to the Martian system and surface of Mars.

Then, a six-person crew would be sent in. They'd arrive at Mars' North Pole during the polar summer, 'to take advantage of the 288 days of continuous light.'

'This approach would minimize the payload that space shuttles would have to carry in and make the mission as safe as possible for the crew members,' according to the study.

Beyond that, researchers believe there are crucial tests that need to be conducted before humans will be ready to use the proposed research base.

'We would need to conduct an initial mission to try everything out for the first time,' Ruede said.

'And the better that initial mission is thought out, the faster we will be able to get things going and move on to colonization.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists sketch out what future Mars colonies could look like

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Swiss scientists developed a design for a self-sustaining research base on Mars that could sustain humans Robots would build the base, which includes three modules: central core, living capsule, orbiting crane Scientists describe it as a 'minimal living space' that would house all important materials and goods A team of researchers have developed a plan for how humans could colonize Mars, the Moon or potentially any planet in the solar system.

# data[].attributes.body
NASA wants the public to submit ideas on how to turn CO2 into Glucose, to eventually make it easier to visit and colonize Mars. They have offered $1 Million to whoever can figure out a good way to get it done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
how long would it take for a manned mission to mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA's Mars Mission Will Give You $1 Million to Turn Carbon Dioxide into Glucose

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The space agency is looking for innovation from the public to help support human life on Mars.

# data[].attributes.body
Scout Lindberg
This article goes in depth on growing plants on Mars. Not only are hydroponic (without soil) greenhouses viable, but biologists are attempting to modify plants so they can take advantage of UV light and abundance of nitrogen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even though plans to colonise Mars are progressing rapidly, it is very hard to actually comprehend what a permanent life out there would be like writes Jestin George of Synthetic Biology Australasia (SBA). One can't help but imagine it to be pretty Earth-centric; we will need to design spaces and resource solutions that provide what we need and use down here, out there. Food will definitely be an issue; sushi is probably off the menu entirely and fresh produce will become a rare and precious commodity. Hydroponic greenhouses, which are already in the testing phase at the International Space Station, are one solution for growing fresh produce on site. The success of these greenhouses, and other Mars-based initiatives, is based on their ability to mimic conditions on Earth. However, maintaining these conditions will be hugely energy-intensive to support, as well as require constant refuelling from Earth, which greatly hinders the feasibility of long-term life on Mars. But like many challenges, sometimes we need to look at the problem from a different angle to find a solution.

It is said that the most innovative and revolutionary ideas are forged at the boundaries of different disciplines of thinking. Perhaps, instead of taking our Earth-based living to Mars, we could design our Earth-based living to be more Martian. When research at the macro, astronomical level meets research at the micro, molecular level, this radical and unrealistic idea starts to get some traction. Synthetic biology, and the designing and reshaping of living organisms, could offer new solutions for these daunting outer space challenges. Recently, three local, Aussie-based synthetic biologists published a paper outlining some of synbio-based solutions for realistically establishing human life on Mars. Briardo Llorente, Thomas Williams, and Hugh Goold, based at Macquarie University in New South Wales, outline some accomplishments in the synbio field that could already offer some solutions, as well as provide new and exciting synbio goals for novel, Mars-focused solutions.

Llorente et al. focus on plants, a vital Earth-based life source for inhabiting Mars for longer than just an outer space visit. They describe how cold-tolerant and drought resistant plants, engineered for increased survival on Earth, could be useful. Such traits would be important in a Martian-adapted version of our Earth-based plants, given that conditions on Mars are significantly colder and more arid. Excitingly, they also propose new and feasible biological designs for these hypothetically Martian plants. Modifying biological processes and transferring pathways from one organism into another are not trivial goals, but are a hallmark accomplishment of synbio research. For example, the authors suggest that plants growing on Martian land could acquire nitrogen (an essential nutrient supplied in fertilizers), by sucking it up directly from the atmosphere, through synbio accomplishment of transferring the nitrogen fixation pathway from microbes into plants.

Increasing edible biomass would also be extremely beneficial to these "Mars-adapted" plants, and the authors suggest numerous synbio approaches for doing so, including redesigning root architecture for improved nutrient uptake, or improving photosynthetic productivity. Photosynthesis is sub-optimal in plants with a lot of room for improvement. Increasing photosynthetic productivity would be highly beneficial, as Mars only experiences about 43% of Earth's sunlight intensity. Earth-based plants are also only able to use light from the visible part of the light spectrum, but synbio engineering could generate plants that can photosynthesise using non-visible, UV light, which is abundant on Mars. These are just some of the ideas proposed in the article for creating Mars-adapted plants and we highly recommend checking out their paper for more.

While the article focuses on plant synbio, the authors have not neglected the potential for engineered microbes to make Mars more habitable for humans and carbon-based life. A huge amount of work in the synbio field has focused on engineering microbes to manufacture a variety of products, such as chemicals, medicines, fibres, and polymers, in a more sustainable and efficient manner than traditional methods. Since it is vital that production systems on Mars be as sustainable and efficient as possible, these already existing microbes could offer realistic solutions for reducing reliance on supplies from earth. There is even more possibility when the Mars-specific problems are built into the design brief. For example, the authors describe a hypothetical microbe engineered to condition Martian soil by expressing enzymes to reduce perchlorates, the toxic compounds found on Mars, while also expressing extracellular polysaccharides to promote soil adhesion.

The publication by Llorente et al. offers an exciting overview of the potential for synthetic biology to bring life on Mars to reality. A Mars bio foundry compiling synbio parts and pathways for solving many production and food-based limitations on Mars would decrease reliance on Earth based resources. This is critical, not only because of resource limitations, but also because of the cost of time and monies on continuous cargo delivery. However, it is strange to think that one of the most realistic solutions to overcome these limitations is in fact not Earth-centric at all, but instead require a great deal of creative thinking within the rules of biological design. On Earth, plants and microbes adapted over hundreds of millions of years through random mutations to become what we depend on today. The tools and knowledge we have acquired to understand, design and manipulate these biological systems at a genetic level means we have a new type of technology- a living, breathing, biological technology- to make this spectacular endeavour a reality.

This feature was originally published on Synthetic Biology Australasia (SBA), and can be read here., thanks to Jestin George ( ) and the team for kindly allowing us to reproduce here.
You may also be interested in... Read: Expert View: How China is catching up with the US in new applications of synthetic biology.
Read: Synthetic biology breakthrough could ignite cheaper biofuel production.

Read: Expert View: The importance of metrology in realizing our synthetic biology potential.

Download: Bio-Based World Quarterly issue #10.

Visit: World Bio Markets, 1st-3rd April 2019, Amsterdam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Expert View: How synthetic biology offers solutions for Mars colonization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though plans to colonise Mars are progressing rapidly, it is very hard to actually comprehend what a permanent life out there would be like writes Jestin George of Synthetic Biology Australasia (SBA). One can't help but imagine it to be pretty Earth-centric; we will need to design spaces and resource solutions that provide what we need and use down here, out there.

# data[].attributes.body
SpaceX is on track to send Mars-intended rockets on short trips by 2019. There are still things to consider before sending people, but the technology to get there is becoming even more realistic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk told an audience at South by Southwest that his timeline for sending a space vehicle to Mars could mark its first milestone early next year.

The privately-funded venture, announced in September 2017, aims to send a cargo mission to the Red Planet by 2022. SpaceX's ultimate objective is to plant the seeds to put a human colony on Mars.

Musk held a surprise question and answer session at the annual technology and culture festival in Austin, Texas on Sunday. The billionaire told attendees that "we are building the first Mars, or interplanetary ship, and I think we'll be able to do short trips, flights by first half of next year."

Mindful of elevating expectations too high, Musk hedged a bit. "Although sometimes, my timelines are a little, you know..." he said to laughter.

Peter Parks | AFP | Getty Images

SpaceX's BFR rocket system is expected to have capabilities for interplanetary travel, and be fully reusable. A flight will cost less than the initial Falcon 1 flights, which Musk pegged in the $5 to $6 million range.

He hopes if BFR launches, others will believe Mars travel is possible, and follow suit.

"The biggest thing that would be helpful is just general support and encouragement and goodwill," Musk said. "I think once we build it we'll have a point of proof something that other companies and countries can go and do. They certainly don't think it's possible, but if we do they'll up their game."

In the immediate term, Mars will need Glass domes, a power station, and an assortment of basic living fundamentals, he cautioned. After the infrastructure is complete, "then really the explosion of entrepreneurial opportunity [will begin], because Mars will need everything from iron foundries to pizza joints," he said.

In a wide-ranging series of remarks, Musk regaled the audience with anecdotes about several of his other ventures, including Tesla and the Boring Company, with the billionaire joking he tweets about the latter more than he actually spends time working on it.

He also raised eyebrows when asked the source of his inspiration, citing iconic entertainer Fred Astaire and irascible hip-hop artist Kanye West.

NASA tweet
--CNBC's Kelsey Kats contributed to this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elon Musk projects a Mars spaceship will be ready for short trips by first half of 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk told an audience at South by Southwest that his timeline for sending a space vehicle to Mars could mark its first milestone early next year. The privately-funded venture, announced in September 2017, aims to send a cargo mission to the Red Planet by 2022.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.space.com/41736-spacex-telstar-satellite-launch-date.html
This article talks about how the launch of the Falcon 9 rocket was delayed and that the Telstar 19V was successfully launched earlier this summer. The article also has a video of a news feed about the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-booster-port-return-fleet-growth/

This article discusses another successful landing of Falcon 9 booster. The article mentions that turn around time for a booster is down to four weeks. they're still hoping to reduce this number to 1 day

# data[].attributes.body
EPFL scientists believe the best place to begin setting up life on Mars is at the Martian Poles, which could later be colonized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're going to set up a colony on Mars, it's a good idea to have a plan, and scientists from École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) have put one together. The team's step-by-step strategy involves setting up a long-term manned outpost at one of the Martian poles that could later be expanded into a permanent colony.

Over the past half century, there have been any number of ideas for setting up some sort of base on Mars in the near future, but these visions have often been rather restricted in scope. Many of these tended to be a bit piecemeal and short term when it came to establishing and growing a settlement on the Red Planet.

To help future mission planners, the EPFL team looked at the most likely place to set up a Mars base. Taking into consideration that the primary objective of a manned Mars mission will be to seek out evidence of present or past life, as well as the need for a reliable water supply for the base, the planners selected the Martian poles as the most likely site for a base that can be expanded over several generations.

"The poles may pose more challenges in the beginning, but they are the best location for the long term since they harbor natural resources that we may be able to use," says Anne-Marlene Rüede, lead author of the study. "We wanted to develop a strategy based on technologies that have been selected accordingly and outline a test scenario so that 20 years from now, astronauts will be able to carry out this kind of space mission."

Anticipating future technologies, the team envisions a base for a mission to the Martian north pole with a crew of six astronauts. This would land during the northern summer to allow for the crew to work during 288 days of continuous daylight and complete the preliminary work before returning to Earth.

However, humans would not be the pioneers for the project. Instead, robots would form the vanguard to build the first living quarters and to survey the local natural resources. In this way, the mission payloads could be kept to a minimum, though each landing would need to handle 110 tonnes of cargo.

According to the team, the first base would consist of three types of modules, made up of a central core, capsules, and a dome. The 12.5-meter-tall (41-ft), 5-meter-wide (16-ft) core would provide minimal living space, with the capsules acting as airlocks. But the most important part would be the dome, which would be made of polyethylene fabric covered with 3 m (10 ft) of ice to provide insulation as well as protection from radiation and micrometeors.

One particular innovation is a rocket crane similar to the one used to set down the Curiosity rover on Mars in 2012. To be sent on the second mission, this would be parked in orbit and be used to offload equipment from the interplanetary spacecraft and transfer it to the surface. This could used for up to six missions, with the fuel for surface launches being processed on Mars itself.

When set up, the first mission would last for nine months, but the team says that if resources like water, carbon dioxide, silicon, iron, aluminum, and sulfur can be extracted from the icecap, air, and soil, then the base could become self-sustaining in the long run. But first, the technology will need testing.

"We would need to conduct an initial mission to try everything out for the first time," says Rüede. "And the better that initial mission is thought out, the faster we will be able to get things going and move on to colonization. In reality, the scientists have not taken a stance on the prospect of colonizing Mars. But one of the key benefits of this research is that the systems it envisions could be used for robotic missions in general, whether Martian, lunar, terrestrial or otherwise."

View gallery - 5 images

Want a cleaner, faster loading and ad free reading experience?
Try New Atlas Plus. Learn more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EPFL plan outlines how to build a Mars colony

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're going to set up a colony on Mars, it's a good idea to have a plan, and scientists from EPFL have put one together. The team's step-by-step strategy involves setting up a long-term manned outpost at one of the Martian poles that could later be expanded into a permanent colony.

# data[].attributes.body
All Companies and Countries with plans to go to mars, although Space X is the most public and seemingly closest there are other companies and countries in the running. The biggest competitor to Elon Musk is seemingly the United Arab Emirates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elon Musk still really wants to put people in a canister, set off a controlled explosion beneath them, and shoot them out of the Earth's atmosphere towards a barren, airless piece of rock -preferably one 33 million miles away.

On Friday at the International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia, Musk announced an updated version of his plan to head for Mars, which he previously discussed at the last IAC meeting in Mexico last year.

But he's not the only one aiming for the red planet.

Meet the martian hopefuls:

SpaceX/Elon Musk-Founded by Elon Musk, SpaceX has already managed to make one stage of a rocket reusable, a move that could save costs in the future. Next step: a bigger rocket, and more distant destinations.

How they plan to get there-On Friday, Musk unveiled new plans for what he calls the BFR ("Big F*cking Rocket"). The BFR is about 30 feet across, almost 350 feet tall, and will be propelled into space by 31 methane-fueled raptor rockets. The entire system would be totally reusable, with a spaceship capable of holding 100 people, and a rocket booster that could be used repeatedly. Musk plans for the BFR to replace SpaceX's other rockets, the Falcon 9 and the yet-to-launch Falcon Heavy.

His (admittedly aspirational) plan is to launch uncrewed rockets to Mars by 2022, and have humans onboard by 2024.

What do they want to do there?-Primarily, Musk and SpaceX just want to get to Mars for the sake of getting there. "Fundamentally the future is vastly more exciting and interesting if we are a space-faring civilization and a multi-planet species than if we are not," Musk said on Friday. They figure we can come up with useful things to do once we're capable of getting there.

-Founded by Bas Lansdorp, the controversial project Mars One intends to send a group of humans to Mars-and leave them there. Plans have been pushed back numerous times, and the most recent timeline indicates that they hope to launch a crew by 2031. That's nine years later than their initial schedule for launch.

How they plan to get there -Plans aren't fully in place yet, but the rough idea is that Mars One will send infrastructure-like a rover and a communications satellite-over to Mars first. That would be followed by a human crew, additional supply units, and then still more crew.

Mars One isn't developing its own technology for the mission. They'll be using whatever they can purchase from other aerospace companies. They estimate that it will cost six billion dollars to send the first four colonists to mars, and four billion dollars for every mission after that. That's actually quite low compared to the Apollo Program, which spent about 140 billion in today's dollars to send 12 people to the Moon, or the Curiosity rover, which cost about $2.5 billion dollars.

What do they want to do there?- Thousands of people signed up for this one-way mission to establish a self-sustaining colony on Mars, with the aim of making humans an interplanetary species.

NASA-the National Aeronautics and Space Administration intends to head out to Mars at some point in the near future.

How they plan to get there-NASA is currently testing the Space Launch System (SLS), a rocket which will be capable of propelling humans and cargo out of Earth orbit. NASA's new Orion capsule will provide the basis for other, larger deep space exploration vehicles.

Currently, six companies (Bigelow Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada Corporation's Space Systems, and NanoRacks) are competing for a NASA contract to build some or all of those futuristic spacecraft. Some of those companies are already designing, building or testing technologies like inflatable habitats and futuristic landers.

Also this week, Lockheed Martin unveiled their version of a Mars Base Camp, the company's vision of a spacecraft capable of sustaining a crew in orbit around Mars, with accompanying landers. That's one route that NASA could choose to take, but others are sure to crop up as the space agency continues on it's slow and deliberate trek towards Mars. Unlike private companies, NASA's incremental-and still nebulous-plans are completely subject to the whims of federal funding.

What do they want to do there? -More so than SpaceX or Mars One, NASA is interested in science. They want to know more about how to get people to Mars, and how to keep them alive once they're there. That means knowing more about what resources could be found on the surface.

Officially, NASA is looking at putting humans in low-Mars orbit in the 2030's, and landing people on Mars sometime after that.

-The United Arab Emirates recently announced Mars 2117, their plan to put a human settlement on Mars within the next 100 years.

How they plan to get there-Right now the UAE is taking advantage of their leisurely timeline, gradually building out ideas for what they want to do on Mars when they get there. They are building a massive proving ground, a Mars city in the desert, where they can test technology and building materials before getting to work on the Red Planet.

What do they want to do there? -Like many others, they want to help humanity expand its horizons beyond this planet. But the project is also about being part of something bigger here on Earth as well. The UAE wants to position itself as a scientific leader, and sees this push for Mars as a chance to test and develop new technologies and international relationships in an exciting and inspirational setting.

Lunar-lubbers

A few companies still have extraterrestrial ambitions, but haven't aimed beyond our closest satellites-yet. Russia and China have both expressed interest in returning to the moon, and they aren't alone.

Moon Express is a private company planning to land on the moon and build an outpost there.

Jeff Bezos, founder of both Amazon and space company Blue Origins hopes to set up a cargo delivery service to the moon in 2020.

There are overlaps between Moon and Mars missions. Last night, Musk lamented the fact that despite it being the futuristic-sounding year 2017, we have no lunar base, and said his BFR could supply connections between the Earth, Moon, and Mars.

And NASA's current plans are to head for Mars via the moon, or at least a nearby space station-and to do that as cheaply as possible.

There's a possible link there, too. NASA already contracts with SpaceX for some space station deliveries. By heading to the moon, Musk can throw his rocket in the ring as NASA decides on contractors for future missions.

Whether we head for the Moon, or Mars, or the Moon and then Mars, one thing is certain: Humankind is on an epic mission to head anywhere but here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All the countries (and companies) trying to get to Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elon Musk still really wants to put people in a canister, set off a controlled explosion beneath them, and shoot them out of the Earth's atmosphere towards a barren, airless piece of rock -preferably one 33 million miles away.

# data[].attributes.body
https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8358/mars-terraforming-not-possible-using-present-day-technology/

This article looks into the feasibility of living on Mars. Some aspects they bring up are a lack of CO2, and therefore terraforming on Mars is not possible with present day technology. As well, water is a problem due to differing temperatures and atmospheric pressure.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the size of a few of the SpaceX rockets. It talks about how fast they could travel, and how someday, they are hoping to carry people to Mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even Elon Musk can still be impressed by the size of his company's rockets.

The SpaceX CEO recently retweeted a video, produced by the California-based production studio Corridor Crew. The video, which Musk called "cool," features visual effects (VFX) artist Wren Weichman attempting to translate the massive size of a Falcon 9 rocket into something the human brain can comprehend.

So, just how large is a Falcon 9? By the numbers, the Falcon stands 230 feet (70 meters) tall, or roughly the height of a 21-story building. But how large is that? Human brains have a hard time creating an accurate mental image of massive objects without some sense of scale. That's where the filmmakers came in. [ The Evolution of SpaceX's Rockets in Pictures]

Cool video https://t.co/FW24TRL687
- Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2018

Most people have never seen a rocket up close, so it's incredibly difficult to comprehend exactly how large 230 feet is with nothing but a featureless sky as the backdrop (as seen in most rocket photos and videos).

SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket sits on the pad in Florida before the spacecraft's first demo test mission in February 2018.

Credit: SpaceX/Flickr

In the video, Weichman provides excellent insight into these incredible feats of engineering. Flexing his VFX muscles, he uses a combination of 3D modeling and computer animation to place the rockets in everyday locations, illustrating just how massive these spacecraft really are.

By putting the fleet of SpaceX rockets - Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and even the upcoming BFR Mars craft - in an office building or next to the Statue of Liberty and other recognizable backdrops, Weichman helps us better appreciate the scale of SpaceX's creations.

Try imagining a 21-story building flying through the air at speeds of over 17,000 mph (27,000 km/h). Pretty hard to do, right? And the Falcon Heavy rocket is not even the largest rocket that will be in SpaceX's arsenal. The company's 348-foot-tall (107 m) BFR (or Big Falcon Rocket), which could one day carry humans to Mars, is taller than the Statue of Liberty and as wide as a London bus is long.

And that's just the beginning. Who knows what the rockets of the future may look like?

"As big as these rockets are, we may see rockets that are even larger," says the video's host, Wren Weichman. "I mean, the BFR is still not as large as the Saturn V rocket, which took us to the moon - and we built that 50 years ago."

Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wrap Your Head Around the Huge Size of SpaceX's Falcon Rockets in This Epic Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even Elon Musk can still be impressed by the size of his company's rockets. The SpaceX CEO recently retweeted a video, produced by the California-based production studio Corridor Crew. The video, which Musk called "cool," features visual effects (VFX) artist Wren Weichman attempting to translate the massive size of a Falcon 9 rocket into something the human brain can comprehend.

# data[].attributes.body
This article takes Elon Musk's current plans of going to Mars and developing a self sustainable colony. His plans are seen from another perspective and explained in that way. - Kirkland Zitzow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk outlined plans to get hundreds of people to Mars. But are those plans really feasible?

This simulated image provides a look inside the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System for sending humans to Mars.

Credit: SpaceX

Musk, who is founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, outlined a plan to build spacecraft that could each transport on the order of 100 people to the Red Planet. The plan would also include a giant new SpaceX rocket, spacecraft and support systems to help get those people to Mars (or destinations beyond). The even-longer-term goal that tops off Musk's vision is for humans alter Mars' atmosphere and environment to make the planet hospitable to life.

The plan is ambitious in nearly every way, from the technology Musk presented to the time line on which he hopes to accomplish these goals, not to mention the funding that will be required. Even so, the experts we talked to said it doesn't seem impossible, or even unachievable.[ Images: SpaceX's Interplanetary Transport for Mars Colonization]

"There's no technical obstacle to the plan being executable," space policy expert John Logsdon told Space.com. "SpaceX has good engineers. They don't have to really invent much."

Right now, SpaceX is flying nonhuman payloads for NASA and other customers, using the company's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule (both built entirely in house). SpaceX is scheduled to start flying astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA as early as 2017. The company is also working on a larger rocket, called the Falcon Heavy, and representatives for SpaceX have said they would like to use the rocket to send one of the company's Dragon spacecraft to Mars as early as 2018.

The Falcon 9 has a reusable first-stage booster, which, instead of falling into the ocean and being scrapped after a launch, uses a set of thrusters to reorient itself, and three of its engines to lower itself down onto a landing pad. SpaceX has demonstrated a series of successful booster landings, although the company has not yet reused any of those landed boosters. That landing technology would likely be used to lower spacecraft onto the surface of Mars.

A simulated view of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System traveling to Mars, using solar panels to gather energy.

Credit: SpaceX

Logsdon said he thinks the main obstacles to SpaceX's Mars plans are money and time.

"The plan he is proposing on the timescale he is proposing seem to me to on the edge of fantasy," Logsdon said. He noted that Musk is known for setting ambitious goals on tight time lines, saying, "That's just Elon. That's his style." [ SpaceX's Mars Colony Plan: By the Numbers]

In addition, Logsdon said that while Musk's plan seemed to explain how humans would get to Mars, there was a significant gap in planning as to how those spacefarers would establish a colony on the Red Planet. Technologies and procedures for surviving on the surface of Mars are, at best, still in the early planning stages. Supporting such a huge influx of people will require food sources, an economic system and energy supplies, which Musk did not explain, Logsdon said.

"He got a little hand-wavy there," Logsdon said.

Because of the huge amount of funding a plan like this will require, SpaceX can't do it alone, Logsdon said. They'll need significant sources of funding, and NASA will likely be one of those sources, he said. As a result, it's very possible that NASA's plans to send humans to Mars will converge with SpaceX's plans, Logsdon added.

Some people are already breaking down the technical specifics of Musk's plan. Those experts include Robert Zubrin, leader of the space advocacy organization the Mars Society.

"In his talk today, Musk presented a number of interesting and very useful ideas," Zubrin wrote on the society's website. "I don't think they are practical in the form he presented them, but with a little modification, they could be made practical and very powerful."

Ahead of Musk's talk on Tuesday, SpaceX representatives announced that the company is working on a rocket engine that would run on methane/oxygen propellant, which the company determined was a more readily available fuel on Mars.

"He's right on the mark about using methane/oxygen propellant, which can be made on Mars, about making the spacecraft reusable and refillable on orbit," Zubrin wrote. However, Zubrin criticized Musk's plan to send one large propulsion system all the way to Mars, instead suggesting a system that would send the spacecraft toward Mars, but remain in orbit around the Earth.

"Musk's mega-Mars plans are welcome news," Leonard David, author of "Mars: Our Future on the Red Planet" (National Geographic, Oct. 2016) and a longtime Space.com contributor, said in an email. "But it is clear that there's far more needed in terms of technological and financial detail before climbing onboard his dream machinery."

"There are a number of 'DUD' (doable under duress) factors that must be dealt with before a true settlement on Mars becomes realistic," David said. Examples of DUD factors are "the types of machinery and power levels needed to run equipment for transforming the abundant resources on Mars into usable, life-supporting and sustaining supplies," he said.

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, outlined the company's plans to colonize Mars, speaking at the International Astronautical Congress meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, on Sept. 27, 2016. Image taken from a SpaceX webcast of the event.

The experts we talked to also agreed that Musk has certainly managed to inspire many people, both in the industry and in the general public, about space exploration. Logsdon said the atmosphere in the room during Musk's talk was "like a rock concert."

"His extraordinary vision and passion is tugging at the adventuresome spirit of humankind, at least those who hunger to be part of a plan that assures our species becomes multiplanetary," David said. He later added that "Musk has served notice that building the bridge between the third and fourth planets in our solar system is an attainable and realizable goal."

Chris Carberry, executive director and co-founder of Explore Mars (a nonprofit created to advance the goal of sending humans to Mars within the next two decades), told David via email that "this announcement is likely to grow enthusiasm for humans on Mars tremendously.

"I think it is important, however, for SpaceX to articulate in more detail - over the next few months - their funding mechanism and how they will overcome the many technical and physiological challenges," Carberry said.

Follow Calla Cofield @callacofield. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feasible or Fantasy? SpaceX's Mars Plan Draws Expert Reactions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk outlined plans to get hundreds of people to Mars. But are those plans really feasible? Musk, who is founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, outlined a plan to build spacecraft that could each transport on the order of 100 people to the Red Planet.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was about a presentation given by Elon Musk. He mentions the reasoning behind colonizing mars, the need for widespread support, and what SpaceX has planned for the trips and their timeline.
https://bigthink.com/news/elon-musk-spacex-will-be-able-to-do-short-trips-to-mars-by-2019

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.foodandwine.com/news/beer-waste-insulation-mars-colony
This article talks about how beet can help the colonization of Mars and other planets using the waste of beer. It can defend humans from harm, and is lighter and more affordable than other objects that do similar things like a glass pane.

# data[].attributes.body
This article covers the basics of a few essential questions on the application of psychology to life on Mars. It covers: the issues with distance from home, the neurophysiological effects of altered environments (lack of gravity), the mental health issues that might arise, and the coping skills that we'd need to deal with them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Psychologists conduct studies on what astronauts might face during a long journey.

# data[].attributes.body
This article tells about how the current president of SpaceX, Gwynne Shotwell, believes that there will hop tests done with the BFR done in late 2019. This shows how close they believe they are to actually being able to send physical rockets, even if they are only tests.

~Cord Redding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Speaking on a panel titled "Future of Space" at a 2018 conference for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) 60th anniversary, SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell reportedly confirmed that SpaceX is still targeting integrated BFR tests in 2019, in the form of hops with the next-gen rocket's upper stage (known as BFS).

Shotwell: think we'll be "hopping" the second stage of BFR (the BFS) late next year. #DARPA60

- Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) September 6, 2018

SpaceX has been gradually developing the BFR over the last two or so years, a rocket specifically intended to itself enable the sustainable, long-term colonization of Mars as quickly as practicable. The vast majority of that effort has been put funneled into the heart of the vehicle, a new propulsion system known as Raptor. Predicted years ago to be several times more powerful than the most modern iteration of Raptor, the rocket engine is targeting extreme efficiency both in its thrust to mass ratio and in the unique full-flow staged combustion cycle that will feed it propellant.

According to a major update from Elon Musk in late 2017 and early 2018, Raptor is expected to be roughly two times as powerful as the Block 5 Merlin 1D engines that power SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Heavy rockets, while also being dramatically more efficient (judged from a measure known as Isp, or specific impulse) thanks to that aforementioned combustion cycle and the choice of liquid methane and oxygen as BFR's propellant. In its sea level variant, SpaceX's c. 2017 Raptor will generate 1700 kN (~380,000 lbf) of thrust - exactly 2X Merlin 1D's current ~850 kN (~190,000 lbf) thrust rating. The vacuum variants of each rocket engine wind up with roughly 10% greater thrust.

SpaceX's Mars city aspirations are functionally unachievable without an extraordinarily capable Raptor propulsion system ready to power BFR's booster and spaceship. As such, initial hop tests (akin to the Grasshopper testing SpaceX used to flesh out Falcon 9 rocket recovery) can be expected to lean heavily towards a flight-test program for Raptor, perhaps mixed with some more serious structural experimentation and testing in later phases.

It's also likely that initial Grasshopper-style testing of BFS will focus in part on the vehicle's legs and general aerodynamic characteristics, absolutely critical if SpaceX hopes to land its first cargo and crew spaceships on unprepared Martian terrain - something that will have to be done to avoid major changes in early Mars mission strategy. Combined with some sort of autonomous radar (or perhaps a Tesla-assisted computer vision solution) and extensive prior planning (mapping out landing spots), those legs will need to be flexible enough to absorb any major terrain imbalances and prevent the rocket and its sensitive cargo from tipping over.

Equally importantly, hop testing - at least of the more extreme variety hinted at by CEO Elon Musk - will also allow SpaceX to test the aerodynamic behavior and control surfaces of the spaceship at points in Earth's upper atmosphere that almost perfectly mirror the unusual atmospheric conditions on Mars, something that has already been exploited scientifically by both SpaceX and NASA during Falcon 9's recovery development.

Per long-time SpaceNews correspondent Jeff Foust, Shotwell was paraphrased saying that she expected spaceship hop tests could begin as early as late 2019, admittedly a multi-month delay from "early 2019" comments made by Musk (and even Shotwell) earlier this year and late last year.

For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX's rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell expects BFR spaceship hop tests in late 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speaking on a panel titled "Future of Space" at a 2018 conference for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) 60th anniversary, SpaceX COO and President Gwynne Shotwell reportedly confirmed that SpaceX is still targeting integrated BFR tests in 2019, in the form of hops with the next-gen rocket's upper stage (known as BFS).

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In August 1998, I attended the founding convention of the Mars Society. During that first gathering at the University of Colorado, society founder and President Robert Zubrin waxed poetic about the urgent need to send humans to Mars. Seven hundred attendees signed the group's founding manifesto, which contended that it was necessary to journey to Mars so that we could extend scientific knowledge, advance human civilization and carry forward "as much of the best of [human] heritage as possible" while "leaving the worst behind." Conference speakers talked about terraforming the red planet and establishing a new society that would exploit the planet's resources to sustain human life.

At the time, the ideas struck me as slightly loopy. But now, nearly 20 years later, Zubrin's mad dream seems tantalizingly achievable. In 2014, a working group of more than 60 experts from government, industry and academia released a joint statement concluding that "a human mission to Mars is both feasible and affordable." The group also said that putting humans on Mars is "technologically feasible by the 2030s."

Plans are already taking shape with NASA's program to put humans on Mars - the target date is sometime in the 2030s. Although other agencies, including the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems and the European Space Agency, are also studying the feasibility of a human Mars mission, NASA currently has the most advanced Mars program and remains the only group to have successfully landed a craft on the planet. (Several countries, including China, India, Japan and the United Arab Emirates, have sent or will send robotic missions to Mars by 2024.) The private companies SpaceX and Blue Origin are also aiming to send humans to the red planet, but these private plans remain mostly in the early stages. Some major challenges remain, however, before any of these programs can deliver people to Mars.

Challenge: Getting there

The first problem is simply getting off the ground. People venturing to Mars will require fuel and other supplies to last more than two years, and that means their spacecraft will be larger and heavier than anything we've ever sent into space. Bigger spacecraft require much bigger launch vehicles, said Robert Braun, a former NASA researcher who's now dean of engineering and applied science at the University of Colorado (no matter what, he won't be going to Mars himself - in his wedding vows, he pledged to his wife that he would stay on Earth).

To tackle the liftoff problem, NASA is developing the Space Launch System, dubbed the " biggest, most capable rocket ever built" to launch astronauts to Mars and other destinations beyond Earth's orbit. In its first iteration, the rocket will have 8.8 million pounds of thrust (more than 31 times the total thrust of a 747 jet) and the capability to launch 77 tons of cargo into orbit. (For comparison, the space shuttle could launch about 26 tons.) The second-generation system is even more powerful and is designed to blast 143 tons of payload into space. If all goes as planned, the first-generation rocket will undergo its first test launch in 2018 from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

While NASA works on SLS, Elon Musk's company SpaceX is developing its own Interplanetary Transport System consisting of a large rocket booster and spaceship combo, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has gotten into the space business, too - his company Blue Origin is working on a rocket that could send astronauts into deep space.

Once the spaceship leaves the ground, you need a rapid and fuel-efficient way to propel it to Mars. The trip takes at least six months each way, and because of planetary alignments, you're looking at a multiyear mission, said Walter Engelund of NASA's Langley Research Center. Even with technological advances, engineers can squeeze only so much power from traditional chemical propulsion fuels.

Nuclear electric power is another option. It has a very high specific impulse (a measure of how efficiently fuel is used to produce thrust), which "means that it has very good gas mileage," said Stephen Jurczyk, the associate administrator of NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate. "The downside is that it's very low thrust." A craft propelled this way would take longer to get to Mars, but it would travel more efficiently, so this type of system could be a good way to send supplies to the planet in advance of the astronauts' arrival, he said. Given the dangers of spaceflight (more on that below), engineers want to limit the transit time for people. In the meantime, researchers are working on electric propulsion thrusters that could produce greater speeds and potentially shorten the trip.

Challenge: Supplying the mission

Forget the extra baggage fee, if you're heading to Mars; you won't have the luxury of hauling along much stuff. Storage space and weight will be at a premium, and there's only so much skimping you can do when it comes to fuel, food, water and other vital supplies.

Sending some supplies in advance is an obvious solution, but if we expect people to stay on Mars for any length of time, we'll have to become adept at " in situ resource utilization " - NASA's term for living off the land.

There's water lurking below the Martian soil, but it contains perchlorate (a salt that's dangerous to humans), so it would have to be mined and purified before use. Materials from the planet's surface might be usable for crew housing. Presumably this sort of resource extraction would begin with robotics before any people arrived, Braun said. The next logical step would be establishing a system for growing food. The first people sent to Mars would need to arrive with ample food supplies, but agriculture of some sort or another would probably be taking place by the time the second or third crew arrived, Braun said. Martian farming faces its own set of difficulties. The planet's soil does contain the nutrients plants need to grow, but photosynthesis could be a challenge, since Mars gets only about half as much sunlight as Earth and the planet's frequent dust storms could further diminish the amount of light reaching the ground.

Some proposed plans are purposely one-way, leaving people there without a return trip. If Martian visitors want to return to Earth, they'll need fuel. Launching from Mars would be easier than leaving Earth, because in addition to its thin atmosphere, the planet has about one-10th the mass of Earth, which means less gravity to overcome. But still, a return trip requires fuel, and fuel is heavy, and if you have to haul it to Mars from Earth, that means you'll have a lot less room for other supplies. One likely solution would involve sending robots to Mars first so that they could take carbon dioxide from the planet's atmosphere to extract oxygen and methane that could be turned into fuel for the trip home. "If you don't have to bring all the return fuel with you, you can save a lot of money," Engelund said.

Challenge: Keeping astronauts safe

Living in space inflicts a variety of insults on the human body. First, there's the lack of gravity, which weakens bones and causes muscles to atrophy. Experience with the International Space Station has shown that exercise can help with, though not entirely solve, these problems.

A more worrisome issue is radiation, which could cause cancer, acute radiation sickness or even cognitive problems. While astronauts on the International Space Station are exposed to more radiation than they'd get on the Earth's surface, they're still protected from deep space radiation by the Earth's magnetic field, Braun said. After space travelers pass the Van Allen Belts, collections of charged particles that protect the Earth from the most damaging incoming radiation and reach 400 to 36,000 miles above the Earth's surface, they'll have to mitigate deep cosmic radiation, too.

NASA is working on the problem by developing advanced materials to deflect space radiation. "The goal is to minimize mass while maximizing the protective effects," Engelund said. At Brookhaven National Labs in New York, researchers are testing candidate materials such as plastics and metallic shielding. But shields may not entirely solve the problem, because the materials in them have a tendency to emit secondary radiation (radiation released when a substance absorbs outside radiation), Jurczyk said.

Space travelers will continue to require radiation protection when they arrive on Mars, because unlike Earth, Mars does not have a global magnetic field to shield against radiation blasting it from space. Probably the easiest solution here, Engelund said, would be for astronauts to live underground or coat housing structures with protective materials.

Challenge: Entry, descent and landing

Before you buy your SpaceX ticket to Mars ( Musk aspires to get the price down to about $200,000), consider this sobering statistic: In the history of Mars missions, only eight craft have landed successfully.

Just reaching Mars is only the start - then you have the difficult task of landing. Vessels returning to Earth use friction created when entering the planet's thick atmosphere to slow down, but the Mars atmosphere is very thin, so it can't create the drag needed to reduce a space vehicle's speed in preparation for landing.

One promising solution is supersonic retro propulsion, which essentially uses rockets firing in the direction opposite of the spacecraft's travel to counter its forward motion.

But slowing down isn't enough; you also have to stick the landing. "We know how to land small robotic payloads on the Mars surface - things the size of a child's toy or, in the case of the Curiosity rover, a small car," Braun said. But landing a spaceship will be more like landing a two-story house next to another two-story house that's already there, Braun said. Not only do you need to nail the touchdown, you need to get the position just right.

"Landing with precision - and by that I mean within a few kilometers - is a big challenge," Engelund said. "On Earth, we have this great thing called GPS, which we can use to steer and navigate things with fairly high precision." Mars doesn't have that global positioning system, so astronauts would have to rely on terrain maps and other forms of navigation. Touching down in the right spot is crucial to ensure that any supplies sent in advance are within reach - and it's also important for avoiding hazards like cliffs and other potentially dangerous features.

Challenge: Sustained political will

Give NASA's Mars program steady funding for a few decades, and it's almost certain to solve the remaining technical barriers to putting humans on Mars, Engelund said. But therein lies the biggest barrier in the U.S.: NASA and the space program are politically charged topics. "Almost without exception, whenever a new administration comes in, we get a change in priorities," Engelund said. Sending humans to Mars will require sustained support, and that means politicians who are willing to fund NASA and prioritize its Mars program.

Although private companies have entered the race to Mars, a successful journey will almost certainly rely on cooperation or technology from NASA. If NASA's Mars program is going to have any chance of proceeding on its planned timeline, it will need ongoing support that outlasts multiple administrations and elections.

It's too soon to know what the new administration will hold for the Mars program. President Donald Trump has, at least once, pledged not to cut space funding, but he also said at a town hall rally in New Hampshire in August that he wants to "rebuild our infrastructure" before sending people to Mars.

Sending people to Mars will take a lot of infrastructure too, and whether Robert Zubrin's dream is fulfilled in his lifetime (he's 64) will largely depend on money and politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
All We Really Need To Get To Mars Is A Boatload Of Cash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In August 1998, I attended the founding convention of the Mars Society. During that first gathering at the University of Colorado, society founder and President Robert Zubrin waxed poetic about the urgent need to send humans to Mars.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has spoken often of colonizing Mars with his company SpaceX.

Many experts believe that setting up a crewed Martian outpost is possible if not inevitable.

However, the technologies required to establish a permanent, thriving colony on the red planet don't yet exist.

Biosphere 2 - a large-scale experiment from the early 1990s - remains one of the best illustrations of the challenges that lie ahead.

One by one, four men and four women wearing dark coveralls stepped up to a lectern to deliver their final remarks.

"I take my last breaths of this atmosphere, knowing that I will take breaths from a different atmosphere from all of you," said Jane Poynter, one of the crew members.

Then they lined up in front of a velvet rope, waved to the cameras, and stepped through an airlock crafted from submarine bulkheads. The doors were sealed. It was September 26, 1991. The group wouldn't leave until 1993.

The airtight facility they entered, called Biosphere 2, is dug into a hillside of the Sonoran Desert near Oracle, Arizona. It's a geodesic cocoon made of 6,500 triangular glass panes, and it looks something like a cross between a brilliant jewel and a sprawling terrarium. Inside are acres of lush green plants, millions of cubic feet of air, and an undulating 675,000-gallon saltwater ocean.

Poynter was walking into the largest, longest-running space colony simulation ever built. It would not only pioneer a system to regenerate all the food, air, and water needed to survive on Mars but also test the crew's physical and mental limits. Poynter would also face a daunting emotional trial with another crew member, Taber MacCallum: a relationship they'd hidden for years from public view.

"It was an incredibly audacious and, in so many ways, incredibly successful attempt at building a prototype space base," Poynter, who now co-runs the high-altitude-balloon company World View, told me nearly 25 years after she emerged from the biosphere.

People no longer get sealed inside Biosphere 2. Today it's a scientific research facility run by the University of Arizona. Yet the original mission of the biospherians has taken on new relevance as threatening changes to the Earth's climate, and ultimately to humanity, take alarming shape.

The outlook has grown so gloomy that, in the eyes of some, the idea of colonizing Mars as a backup drive for the human race now seems appropriate, if not inevitable. Joining Stephen Hawking and others is billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, whose grand ambitions have made talk of inhabiting the red planet using his aerospace company, SpaceX, part of casual conversation.

The ultimate goal of his entrepreneurial existence, Musk has said, is to build a permanent, self-sustaining city of 1 million people on Mars - complete with pizza joints - as a sort of insurance policy against all-out catastrophe on Earth.

SpaceX hopes to launch a "Big F---ing Rocket," a reusable space vehicle Musk is designing to ferry up to 100 people to the red planet, with the first (though uncrewed) missions starting in 2022.

"That's not a typo, although it is aspirational," Musk said during an October 2017 presentation.

There's a question that looms larger than the months-long trip to Mars: How will anyone survive on a dry, irradiated, and nearly airless world for years on end? Musk has not yet explained how SpaceX plans to sustain a hypothetical Martian metropolis, and he declined to comment for this story through a spokesperson.

Yet Biosphere 2, a now decades-old expedition with troubling results, still offers some of the clearest answers to that question.

Agents of Gaia

Biosphere 2 was envisioned partly as homage to Gaia hypothesis, which is the idea that life will adapt to a given environment, no matter how inhospitable, to make it habitable.

MacCallum, Poynter, and the other biospherians were outsized members of Gaia's adaptive workforce inside their sealed habitat. They farmed crops, raised animals, managed the air supply, and recycled every speck of waste. They grew rice, peanuts, beans, bananas, and wheat, and tended to pigs, goats, and chickens, providing nearly all their food for the duration.

Crew members took turns cooking meals using whatever they could grow. They inspected the system's health, logging research data and completing other myriad tasks that routinely filled 12-hour workdays.

"The dinner bell rang at 7, then we collapsed, exhausted, only to get up at 6:30 to do it all over again," Poynter wrote in her 2006 autobiographical book, "The Human Experiment: Two Years and Twenty Minutes Inside Biosphere 2."

Their mission remains one of the grandest attempts yet to demonstrate what spaceflight experts call bioregenerative life support: a self-contained system of plants, microbes, and animals that can recycle and replenish all the air, food, and water that people need. Such a system is necessary for longer excursions on Mars, a planet that's an average of 158 million miles from Earth and passes nearby only once every two years.

"The scenario in 'The Martian' is completely doable," D. Marshall Porterfield, the former director of NASA's Space Life and Physical Sciences Division, told me, referring the sci-fi book and movie. But that scenario was about a temporary outpost, he said, and any permanent city on Mars would absolutely require bioregenerative life support.

"The scenario in 'The Martian' is completely doable."
D. Marshall Porterfield, former director of NASA's Space Life and Physical Sciences Division

When MacCallum and Poynter were locked inside Biosphere 2, an array of small, diverse biomes - desert, marshland, savannah, ocean, towering rainforest - worked in conjunction to keep them alive. Sunlight beamed through the geodesic glass, driving photosynthesis in carefully selected populations of plants; the plants took carbon dioxide out of the air, breathing out oxygen and storing leftover solar energy as sugars and starch for meals; microbes in the soil broke down organic matter (including feces), generating compost and carbon dioxide for the plants; and water sucked up by the plants transpired into vapor, filtering it for reuse.

Hidden below the wilderness, a mechanical underbelly called the technosphere worked to circulate air, pump water, keep communications gear running, and more using an external power plant. (On Mars, solar or nuclear energy would provide this energy.)

Failure constantly threatened the mission.

Oxygen levels began to inexplicably dip almost immediately after the airlock was closed, while the amount of carbon dioxide rose. Core crops went extinct because of infestations and disease. Fatigue, hunger, and frustration besieged the crew as they tackled one issue after the next. About nine months into the endeavor, the crew split into two opposing factions.

Tubes for the moon and Mars

While the biospherians dug in the dirt, NASA was developing its own shrunk-down, sterile approach to bioregenerative life support: hydroponic greenhouses.

This soil-less farming technique feeds plant roots with mineral-infused water. But instead of relying on them just for food, NASA's versions would use the plants inside to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and to cleanse water.

Phil Sadler, a botanist turned machinist who wears a worn cap with "South Pole Station" embroidered on the front, showed me one of several prototypes of a Mars Lunar Greenhouse that he helped design and build. Inside the 18-foot-long tube, the leafy stems of sweet-potato plants reached toward blinding LED lights.

One unit operating at its full planned potential, Sadler said, could provide 100% of the air, 100% of the water, and 50% of the food that one astronaut needs on Mars or on the moon. The project began around 2004, when NASA was exploring the idea of long-duration lunar missions.

"The idea was just, 'OK, show us how much food you can generate and water you can harvest and oxygen can be generated, and give us some numbers on the farming labor,'" Sadler said. So he worked with scientists and engineers to assemble and test them in a University of Arizona warehouse that's a 45-minute drive south of Biosphere 2.

In each Mars Lunar Greenhouse tube, plastic troughs ferry computer-controlled, nutrient-laden liquid to plant roots, and a cement-mixer-like composter helps digest human and plant waste while filtering the water. The tubes can also be configured to grow insects, mealworms, or other arthropodic protein sources.

Each unit is 7 feet in diameter and built around a lightweight aluminum frame and lighting rig. Everything collapses to be 4 feet long - small enough to fit in a decent-sized spaceship - and takes two people just 10 minutes to assemble.

On the moon or on Mars, the system would land ahead of a human mission, deploy an autonomous rover to dig a foundation in the soil, and inflate the tubes. The rover would bury the units to guard plants against dangerous radiation levels and micrometeorite strikes. Sunlight would enter the greenhouses through Himawari devices: large, satellite-like dishes that collect, concentrate, and distribute natural light.

Sadler and his colleagues said there's more work left to achieve full efficiency - oxygen production, for example, is about half of what it should be. A space-grade version would be a boon to President Donald Trump's grand (yet nebulous) goal for NASA to send astronauts back to the moon, then on to explore Mars.

"We're looking at supporting six people on one mission for two years," Sadler said. "If we can do that, then we'll be successful." Yet NASA's funding for the greenhouse project ran dry in August 2017, leaving Sadler and his colleagues hunting for more money to refine and perfect their designs. Without more cash, the project may join similarly abandoned NASA projects, including the Biomass Production Facility and BIO-Plex.

While NASA's work on bioregenerative life support stalls, China is vaulting ahead. The nation is rumored to have 1 million people working on its space program, Sadler said. In July, four students locked themselves inside its airtight "Lunar Palace 1" system to subsist on plants and mealworms for 200 days.

Invisible bullets from deep space

To keep harmful levels of carbon dioxide at bay, the Biosphere 2 crew stockpiled and dried plant waste to prevent decay and slow formation of the gas, and ran a chemical scrubber that MacCallum had installed just a day before closure.

But about 17 months into the mission, the vanishing oxygen took a turn for the worse. Plants could not generate oxygen as fast as predicted and levels dipped from 20.9% - which is normal at Earth's surface - to about 14%, "beyond the point where pilots and air passengers go on oxygen," Poynter wrote in her book.

ADVERTISEMENT

Poynter, MacCallum, and others suffered from sleep apnea. They'd stop breathing, gasp for air, and jerk awake every few minutes. Walking up a flight of stairs was exhausting, as was remembering a list of simple tasks. In January 1993, MacCallum found Roy Walford, the crew's medical officer, hunched over a lab notebook and unable to do simple math.

Mission controllers injected 14 metric tons of liquid oxygen through a fitting to replace what had gone missing. An overabundance of oxygen-hungry bacteria in the soil, plus the biosphere's unsealed concrete foundation, was later discovered to be responsible for the problem.

But even when conditions inside were at their worst, Biosphere 2 left out one dramatic risk for a real Mars colony: radiation.

Two types of radiation in space are extremely harmful to humans: protons spewed out by the sun and cosmic rays. Like tiny bullets, these high-energy particles and the secondary radiation they create penetrate deep into cells, promoting chronic and sometimes deadly diseases such as cancer.

Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere protect us by deflecting and absorbing most of this energy.

"The background radiation rates on the ground are 100 times to 1,000 times smaller than they would be above the atmosphere in free space," Edward Semones, a radiation health officer at NASA's Johnson Space Center, said.

In addition to an increased risk of cancer, deep-space radiation can promote cataracts and impair eyesight. Even high-flying commercial-airline workers face that risk because of the thinner atmosphere. Animal-based experiments also suggest radiation could damage the nervous system, including the brain, which might impair astronauts' focus and memory.

"You're somehow losing cognitive ability," Semones said, adding that, over the years, this "may impact conducting the mission."

The more thick and heavy shielding there is between a person and the vacuum, the better. Semones said about 20 centimeters of water can soak up most space radiation. Yet water is dense and expensive to launch from Earth into space.

"The background radiation rates on the ground are 100 times to 1,000 times smaller than they would be above the atmosphere in free space."
Edward Semones, radiation health officer at NASA's Johnson Space Center

One solution, Sadler said, is for early round-trip Mars colonization missions to use Phobos, the planet's largest moon, as a pit stop since it likely harbors water ice just below its ruddy surface. Probes drilled into Phobos could heat and melt the ice, pump the water into elastic cells that surround a spacecraft, and shield a crew from radiation.

More radical solutions for radiation have been proposed. Christopher Mason, a geneticist and biomedical researcher, suggests creating transgenic humans as part of a 10-phase, "500-year plan" to colonize space. His concept is to use a technology like CRISPR to edit a space flier's genome to constantly repair, as Mason put it, "do not disturb" regions that lead to cancers and other problems.

"You can't dismiss it as an idea, but right now but we don't know the mechanisms," Semones said.

Ultimately, colonists may try to terraform Mars - a deliberate and unprecedented act of climate change. Frozen carbon dioxide at the Martian poles could be turned into greenhouse gases, building a radiation-absorbing atmosphere that would insulate the surface. Plants could convert the thin air into oxygen and, over hundreds of years, temperatures may warm enough to melt hidden water and make it again flow on the surface - and permit spacesuit-free excursions.

Jim Green, the former head of NASA's planetary science division, has proposed building an artificial magnetic shield for Mars to protect that hypothetical nascent atmosphere from the sun's proton radiation, which might otherwise blow the air into space.

Our own worst enemies?

The truth may be that humanity itself is the most basic and significant threat to inhabiting Mars.

Months before Poynter left Biosphere 2, two fellow crew members approached her and spat in her face.

The fury arose over proposed changes meant to appease outside scientists and convince them of the experiment's credibility. The struggle infused psychological strain in the crew, leading the formerly chummy group to divide into bitterly opposed halves - "Us and Them," as Poynter wrote - just nine months after the airlock shut.

ADVERTISEMENT

Instead of communal dinners they had enjoyed during the early months, the crew increasingly ate alone or in their own group of four. People would pass each other without words or expression. Shouting matches would erupt over minor transgressions. Even a decade later, encounters between members of the two groups were awkward.

"The literature is replete with examples of social problems developing during extended isolated missions," Poynter said in her book, citing a 1994 conference paper. "In a 1970 Antarctic expedition," wrote the study's author, Debra Facktor Lepore, "one crew member got into an argument and shot and killed another over wine taken from a trailer."

Other experiments that have isolated volunteer crews for months on end, such as HI-SEAS in Hawaii, NASA's isolation chamber in Houston, and Mars500 in Moscow, back up these and other human-level challenges.

'We have not figured this out yet'

Poynter and MacCallum got married on the lawn of Biosphere 2 the summer after their mission ended. A second crew, the facility's last inhabitants, looked on from inside the habitat as the two exchanged vows.

Despite the challenges that the couple faced inside Biosphere 2, both said they would volunteer to live inside a hypothetical Biosphere 3 and go on the first human mission to Mars.

"That we stayed in there for two years, and made almost all our food and water and everything, changed what people thought was possible," MacCallum said. "It completely recalibrated our understanding of, 'Can we create self-sustaining environments? Are biospheres possible? Is space colonization really even possible?'"

The couple's history, technical expertise, bond, and willingness to risk their lives later short-listed them for a mission called "Inspiration Mars," which would have sent a small space capsule flying past the red planet during a proposed 500-day round trip. The American billionaire and engineer Dennis Tito announced in 2013 that he would fund the project with $300 million, but NASA, a necessary partner, ultimately declined to help.

Poynter said she would still accept the opportunity to make the trip - in a heartbeat.

"Are you kidding? Going to Mars and actually seeing the red planet in your capsule window?" Poynter said. "And then turning around and looking back at planet Earth as a tiny pale-blue dot, thinking about how all human history as we know it happened on that one little tiny dot? That would be amazing."

But how we'll get to Mars, and when, are questions that remain unanswered.

John Adams, deputy director of Biosphere 2, said that even the "Earth-in-a-bubble" approach is nowhere near ready. "We have not figured this out yet," he said. "But I do think that the lessons learned from the original biosphere and the mission are just tremendous, and we could make a much better go at it a second time around."

Poynter and MacCullum said they admire Musk's bold urgency to colonize Mars, even if he still lacks a plan to keep adventurers alive on the red planet, let alone during the trip there.

"As a species, we've always sought higher ground," Poynter said. "We've always gone up to the top of the mountain to see what what's out there and this is the next step. 110%, I think we need to do this."

CREDITS

Reporting: Dave Mosher

Editing: Dana Varinsky

Design & Graphics: Skye Gould and Samantha Lee

Top Video: NASA/JPL-Caltech; University of Arizona

Video Editing: Kevin Reilly
SIMPLE REACH GOOGLE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life in a bubble: How we can fight hunger, loneliness, and radiation on Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has spoken often of colonizing Mars with his company SpaceX. Many experts believe that setting up a crewed Martian outpost is possible if not inevitable. However, the technologies required to establish a permanent, thriving colony on the red planet don't yet exist.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Audacious is an understatement if you're looking to sum up SpaceX's grand plan to make humans a multi-planetary species, introduced last week by CEO Elon Musk. The Interplanetary Transport System could get us to Mars and beyond, but it would be just as flawed to say its foolproof. There is a lot of work to do.

Musk described the ITS as sort of a Union Pacific railroad for space, but instead of California, it'll take pioneers to Mars. He was enthusiastic about how the ITS is supposed to work, but a few things will get tricky, as he noted to those assembled at the International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico, on September 27.

Here are five big obstacles Musk and his team need to overcome.

5. Radiation: "Not too big of a deal."

Musk is anything but shy about saying outlandish things, but cosmic radiation is nothing to mess with: "There's going to be some risk of radiation," he said. "But it's not deadly." He acknowledges a risk of developing cancer, but dismisses it as "relatively minor." Anyone who played Oregon Trail knows that pioneers face [all sorts of ways to die](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The Oregon_Trail(video_game) for which they are unprepared. It's no different for space pioneers.

Without outlining the kind of shielding that will be used on the ship - named Heart of Gold after the one in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - or any other methods to mitigate radiation exposure, Musk threw out mentions of pointing the rear of the rocket towards the sun to maximize shielding, and developing artificial magnetic fields to deflect high-energy particles. The latter is called "active shielding, and such technology is, for now, " unproven."

Cosmic radiation is a big deal, and it's maybe the single largest reason NASA has not yet attempted a crewed mission to the red planet. Taxpayer-funded NASA can't approve a mission that is unsafe past a certain threshold, while SpaceX, a private company, is unencumbered by those constraints. We haven't found a type of shielding that provides enough protection that's also light enough for Mars-bound spacecraft.

Moreover, to say the risk of cancer is "minor" is wrong. Consider that deep space radiation is probably killing former Apollo astronauts who went to the moon and back - people who spent less than two weeks in space. A mission to Mars would take about six months. Moreover, Musk wants to create the ITS in order to make a Mars colony possible a place where people will live and work long term. Even on the surface of Mars, astronauts will be exposed to much higher-than-normal amounts of radiation due to the lack of a robust magnetic field on Mars.

4. Money: "It is a bit tricky."

Musk hopes that one day a trip to Mars will cost about $200,000 a person. Musk wants someone to be able to get to the red planet for basically the cost of selling their house. It's about $10 billion to send just one person to Mars right now. He wants to slash expenses by 50,000 times.

He's banking on developing four pillars for the ITS: full reusability, refilling spacecraft in orbit, producing propellant on Mars with endemic resources, and using the right kind of propellant to achieve maximum efficiency.

This gets Musk out to improve costs by a magnitude of 4.5 - or roughly 31,000 times. That still quite shy of the $200,000 goal, but it's a start. Musk's biggest aid might come from the simple fact that all technologies become less expensive as time goes if he's sticking with the same basic design for the ITS for the long haul, the costs will eventually come down.

3. Energy/Water: "We think we can do with large solar panels."

Part of Musk's plan calls for generating spacecraft fuel on the surface of Mars itself, using resources already found on the planet. He and his team think they can achieve the production of methane using carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and water that's already stored as water-ice.

The major hurdle there is that Mars propellant production will require an extraordinary amount of energy. Musk suggest bringing large, powerful solar panels to the planet in order to generate the necessary energy. It's unclear how those panels will be brought to the planet, and if indeed they will be able to capture enough sunlight and turn it into electricity.

Musk will need an extraordinary amount of energy just to harvest water from the ice stores at the poles. This is not currently practical or sustainable. Neither is Musk's idea to use atmospheric water to grow plants and crops, since there's not much on Mars.

SpaceX has to hope that NASA finds an aquifer on Mars.

2. Deep-Space Communication

We already know the first few Red Dragon missions will rely on NASA for communicating with Earth. The company does not have the interplanetary infrastructure.

SpaceX could definitely have the necessary communications instruments built and launched by the time the ITS is ready to go, but Musk and his team have yet to reveal any details on that front.

1. Planetary Protection

The international protocols of planetary protection prevent any nation or party in the world from seeding other worlds with life from Earth.

Would building a colony on Mars populated by a million human beings violate this agreement? It's unclear. What is more than likely is that the Martian landscape will change dramatically from human behavior. It's inevitable that bacteria, plants, funguses, or other organisms will make it to Mars, and if they're strong or virile enough, they might find a way to survive.

What would be the consequences? Nobody knows. And that's precisely why NASA is so keen on avoiding such a scenario until we know more about what the Martian environment is like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Obstacles Keeping SpaceX from Colonizing Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Audacious is an understatement if you're looking to sum up SpaceX's grand plan to make humans a multi-planetary species, introduced last week by CEO Elon Musk. The Interplanetary Transport System could get us to Mars and beyond, but it would be just as flawed to say its foolproof.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
July 30, 2018 by Bill Steigerwald, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

This infographic shows the various sources of carbon dioxide on Mars and their estimated contribution to Martian atmospheric pressure. Credit: NASA

Science fiction writers have long featured terraforming, the process of creating an Earth-like or habitable environment on another planet, in their stories. Scientists themselves have proposed terraforming to enable the long-term colonization of Mars. A solution common to both groups is to release carbon dioxide gas trapped in the Martian surface to thicken the atmosphere and act as a blanket to warm the planet.

However, Mars does not retain enough carbon dioxide that could practically be put back into the atmosphere to warm Mars, according to a new NASA-sponsored study. Transforming the inhospitable Martian environment into a place astronauts could explore without life support is not possible without technology well beyond today's capabilities.

Although the current Martian atmosphere itself consists mostly of carbon dioxide, it is far too thin and cold to support liquid water, an essential ingredient for life. On Mars, the pressure of the atmosphere is less than one percent of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere. Any liquid water on the surface would very quickly evaporate or freeze.

Proponents of terraforming Mars propose releasing gases from a variety of sources on the Red Planet to thicken the atmosphere and increase the temperature to the point where liquid water is stable on the surface. These gases are called "greenhouse gases" for their ability to trap heat and warm the climate.

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are the only greenhouse gases that are likely to be present on Mars in sufficient abundance to provide any significant greenhouse warming," said Bruce Jakosky of the University of Colorado, Boulder, lead author of the study appearing in Nature Astronomy July 30.

Although studies investigating the possibility of terraforming Mars have been made before, the new result takes advantage of about 20 years of additional spacecraft observations of Mars. "These data have provided substantial new information on the history of easily vaporized (volatile) materials like CO2 and H2O on the planet, the abundance of volatiles locked up on and below the surface, and the loss of gas from the atmosphere to space," said co-author Christopher Edwards of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

The researchers analyzed the abundance of carbon-bearing minerals and the occurrence of CO2 in polar ice using data from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and used data on the loss of the Martian atmosphere to space by NASA's MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) spacecraft.

"Our results suggest that there is not enough CO2 remaining on Mars to provide significant greenhouse warming were the gas to be put into the atmosphere; in addition, most of the CO2 gas is not accessible and could not be readily mobilized. As a result, terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology," said Jakosky.

Although Mars has significant quantities of water ice that could be used to create water vapor, previous analyses show that water cannot provide significant warming by itself; temperatures do not allow enough water to persist as vapor without first having significant warming by CO2, according to the team. Also, while other gases such as the introduction of chloroflorocarbons or other fluorine-based compounds have been proposed to raise the atmospheric temperature, these gases are short-lived and would require large-scale manufacturing processes, so they were not considered in the current study.

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is around 0.6 percent of Earth's. With Mars being further away from the Sun, researchers estimate a CO2 pressure similar to Earth's total atmospheric pressure is needed to raise temperatures enough to allow for stable liquid water. The most accessible source is CO2 in the polar ice caps; it could be vaporized by spreading dust on it to absorb more solar radiation or by using explosives. However, vaporizing the ice caps would only contribute enough CO2 to double the Martian pressure to 1.2 percent of Earth's, according to the new analysis.

Another source is CO2 attached to dust particles in Martian soil, which could be heated to release the gas. The researchers estimate that heating the soil could provide up to 4 percent of the needed pressure. A third source is carbon locked in mineral deposits. Using the recent NASA spacecraft observations of mineral deposits, the team estimates the most plausible amount will yield less than 5 percent of the required pressure, depending on how extensive deposits buried close to the surface may be. Just using the deposits near the surface would require extensive strip mining, and going after all the CO2 attached to dust particles would require strip mining the entire planet to a depth of around 100 yards. Even CO2 trapped in water-ice molecule structures, should such "clathrates" exist on Mars, would likely contribute less than 5 percent of the required pressure, according to the team.

Carbon-bearing minerals buried deep in the Martian crust might hold enough CO2 to reach the required pressure, but the extent of these deep deposits is unknown, not evidenced by orbital data, and recovering them with current technology is extremely energy intensive, requiring temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (over 572 degrees Fahrenheit). Shallow carbon-bearing minerals are not sufficiently abundant to contribute significantly to greenhouse warming, and also require the same intense processing.

Although the surface of Mars is inhospitable to known forms of life today, features that resemble dry riverbeds and mineral deposits that only form in the presence of liquid water provide evidence that, in the distant past, the Martian climate supported liquid water at the surface. But solar radiation and solar wind can remove both water vapor and CO2 from the Martian atmosphere. Both MAVEN and the European Space Agency's Mars Express missions indicate that the majority of Mars' ancient, potentially habitable atmosphere has been lost to space, stripped away by solar wind and radiation. Of course, once this happens, that water and CO2 are gone forever. Even if this loss were prevented somehow, allowing the atmosphere to build up slowly from outgassing by geologic activity, current outgassing is extremely low; it would take about 10 million years just to double Mars' current atmosphere, according to the team.

Another idea is to import volatiles by redirecting comets and asteroids to hit Mars. However, the team's calculations reveal that many thousands would be required; again, not very practical.

Taken together, the results indicate that terraforming Mars cannot be done with currently available technology. Any such efforts have to be very far into the future.

More information: Bruce M. Jakosky et al. Inventory of CO2 available for terraforming Mars, Nature Astronomy (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0529-6

Provided by: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars terraforming not possible using present-day technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
July 30, 2018 by Bill Steigerwald, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Science fiction writers have long featured terraforming, the process of creating an Earth-like or habitable environment on another planet, in their stories. Scientists themselves have proposed terraforming to enable the long-term colonization of Mars.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, scientists explain how the rover on Mars has witnessed multiple storms of tiny dust particles engulf much of the Martian soil. These storms can last for months and would make the Mission to Mars more difficult and dangerous. These storms are similar to dust storms on Earth however, spread much quicker.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A storm of tiny dust particles has engulfed much of Mars over the last two weeks and prompted NASA's Opportunity rover to suspend science operations. But across the planet, NASA's Curiosity rover, which has been studying Martian soil at Gale Crater, is expected to remain largely unaffected by the dust. While Opportunity is powered by sunlight, which is blotted out by dust at its current location, Curiosity has a nuclear-powered battery that runs day and night.

The Martian dust storm has grown in size and is now officially a "planet-encircling" (or "global") dust event, according to Bruce Cantor of Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego. He is deputy principal investigator of the Mars Color Imager camera (MARCI) on board NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Though Curiosity is on the other side of Mars from Opportunity, dust has steadily increased over it, more than doubling over the weekend. The sunlight-blocking haze, called "tau," is now above 8.0 at Gale Crater -- the highest tau the mission has ever recorded. Tau was last measured near 11 over Opportunity, thick enough that accurate measurements are no longer possible for Mars' oldest active rover.

For NASA's human scientists watching from the ground, Curiosity offers an unprecedented window to answer some questions. One of the biggest is: why do some Martian dust storms last for months and grow massive, while others stay small and last only a week?

"We don't have any good idea," says Scott D. Guzewich, an atmospheric scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, leading Curiosity's dust storm investigation.

Curiosity, he points out, plus a fleet of spacecraft in the orbit of Mars, will allow scientists for the first time to collect a wealth of dust information both from the surface and from space. The last storm of global magnitude that enveloped Mars was in 2007, five years before Curiosity landed there.

In the animation above, Curiosity is facing the crater rim, about 18.6 miles (30 kilometers) away from where it stands inside the crater. Daily photos captured by its Mast Camera, or Mastcam, show the sky getting hazier. This sun-obstructing wall of haze is about six to eight times thicker than normal for this time of season.

Curiosity's engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, have studied the potential for the growing dust storm to affect the rover's instruments, and say it poses little risk. The largest impact is to the rover's cameras, which require extra exposure time due to the low lighting. The rover already routinely points its Mastcam down at the ground after each use to reduce the amount of dust blowing at its optics. JPL leads the Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity mission.

Martian dust storms are common, especially during southern hemisphere spring and summer, when the planet is closest to the Sun. As the atmosphere warms, winds generated by larger contrasts in surface temperature at different locations mobilize dust particles the size of individual talcum powder grains. Carbon dioxide frozen on the winter polar cap evaporates, thickening the atmosphere and increasing the surface pressure. This enhances the process by helping suspend the dust particles in the air. In some cases, the dust clouds reach up to 40 miles (60 kilometers) or more in elevation.

Though they are common, Martian dust storms typically stay contained to a local area. By contrast, the current storm, if it were happening on Earth, is bigger than North America and Russia combined, says Guzewich.

The dust storm may seem exotic to some Earthlings, but it's not unique to Mars. Earth has dust storms, too, in desert regions such as North Africa, the Middle East, and the southwest United States.

But conditions here prevent them from spreading globally, said Ralph A. Kahn, a Goddard senior research scientist who studies the atmospheres of Earth and Mars. These include the structure of our thicker atmosphere and stronger gravity that helps settle dust. Earth also has vegetation cover on land that binds the soil with its roots and helps block the wind and rain that wash the particles out of the atmosphere.

Andrew Good
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-2433
andrew.c.good@jpl.nasa.gov

Written by Lonnie Shekhtman
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Updated on June 21, 2018 at 11 a.m. PDT to add information about the monitoring of the storm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curiosity Captures Photos of Thickening Dust - NASA's Mars Exploration Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A storm of tiny dust particles has engulfed much of Mars over the last two weeks and prompted NASA's Opportunity rover to suspend science operations. But across the planet, NASA's Curiosity rover, which has been studying Martian soil at Gale Crater, is expected to remain largely unaffected by the dust.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a bit lengthy, but it provides a good insight into what health risk astronauts may face on a journey to the red planet. Among the health risks is exposure to space radiation, muscle and bone deterioration, and accumulation of fluids in the upper body.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frank Borman was probably the first person to barf in space.

Borman was part of NASA's Apollo 8 mission, which lifted off a launch pad in Florida on December 21, 1968. Over the next six days, the mission made history as it circled the moon and returned home. But Borman, who led the mission, became queasy near the beginning.

"I threw up a couple of times," he recalled in an interview in 1999. Now 89, Borman is the oldest living U.S. astronaut.

"Nobody likes to throw up," he said. Still, he insisted, this space sickness "wasn't a big deal."

In space, gravity is so weak that it might as well not be there at all. The difference between "up" and "down" becomes meaningless. Astronauts can experience nausea and become disoriented. It happens a lot.

Space sickness isn't the only side effect to accompany the thrill of leaving Earth. A 2015 NASA report identified 30 factors that could make astronauts sick and unable to do their jobs. And there may be more, it said. Until people visit Mars it will be difficult to fully predict what could go wrong.

"We want to make sure we can bring people back healthy, and safely," says astronaut Jessica Meir, who lives in Houston, Texas, and works for NASA. She has helped NASA design programs to train space travelers for the hazards of space.

Some of the known risks are extremely thorny. Along with space sickness, there is radiation - high-energy subatomic particles that will pass through an astronaut's skin, damaging cells inside and out. Space travelers' bones and muscles also can weaken as those body parts no longer have to constantly work against gravity. Blood and other fluids from the lower parts of the body can accumulate in upper body parts, including around the brain. One side effect: Astronauts may suffer hearing loss.

Space travel can even mess with the mind and mental health. For instance, astronauts travel in cramped quarters with other people. "If your relationships [with them] aren't going well, you start to isolate yourself from the rest of the crew," says Steve Kozlowski. He's a psychologist at Michigan State University, in East Lansing. On long-term space flights, astronauts have to collaborate on many tasks. If they don't work well together, those tasks may not get done correctly or on time. That, he says, can jeopardize the mission and lives of the entire crew.

Double Trouble

Today's astronauts visit the International Space Station. It orbits Earth 381 kilometers (237 miles) overhead. Getting there takes less than a day, and most crew members stay less than a year. A trip to the moon would take about 3 to 5 days. A future voyage to an asteroid could take many weeks. Missions to Mars might last about 3 years.

As astronauts' time in space increases, so do their health risks. And the most dangerous one facing those angling for Mars is well known, says Meir: radiation.

Life on Earth is protected from space radiation by a big, invisible, lopsided bubble. It's called the magnetosphere (Mag-NEE-toe-sfeer). It's the region around Earth dominated by the planet's magnetic field. Like a shield, the magnetosphere deflects most of the high-energy particles that stream toward Earth from the sun. Only the highest-energy particles will get through.

Space radiation also comes from galactic cosmic rays. These powerful bursts of energy come from deep space. Scientists are still looking for their source. Like solar radiation, galactic cosmic rays can damage the human body inside and out. Also like solar radiation, these rays are deflected by Earth's magnetosphere.

But a trip to Mars will take astronauts well beyond that protective magnetosphere.

The magnetosphere includes two so-called Van Allen belts. "Once you traverse the Van Allen belts, which wrap around the Earth, there is no more protection," says engineer Lisa Carnell.

Carnell studies deep-space radiation at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. Her laboratory studies attempt to simulate deep space. They include firing high-energy lasers at targets, including ordinary objects and samples of human tissue. She also has conducted studies on the risk of space-radiation sickness, which can lead to symptoms ranging from nausea and vomiting to organ damage. (This is different from the regular space sickness due to weightlessness.)

Radiation may damage the cardiovascular system, which includes the heart and lungs. It also can damage the central nervous system, which includes the brain and spinal cord. So radiation may impair someone's ability to think clearly.

Galactic cosmic rays can shower astronauts with particles of many sizes. Carnell likens this radiation to invisible bullets fired from deep-space guns. "There are different types of guns and different types of damage they can do," she notes.

Cosmic rays include small particles, which are parts of an atom. Those particles are like BBs. The simplest may be isolated protons or electrons. Bigger ones may include the cores of atoms of lithium, carbon or iron. Carnell likens these to rifle bullets.

In laboratory studies, she says, exposure to beams of these particles will cause cancer in mice. Scientists haven't seen evidence of higher cancer rates in astronauts. But astronauts have not yet remained in space for very long. And even those who have stayed up for months on the ISS are still protected by the magnetosphere.

Mars is far outside that protective bubble. Data collected by the Curiosity rover, which roams the Red Planet, finds that surface space radiation levels there are high. This suggests astronauts who go to Mars will face a high risk of cancer.

Space missions will have to protect astronauts from that radiation. Carnell says engineers are looking for many ways to do that. Each has pros and cons. One solution includes building space ships and space suits from thick materials that could shield the passengers. However, such a ship might be too heavy and expensive to launch. And those suits would be bulky.

Another solution would be to design and use new materials that deflect more radiation. But scientists need time and money to develop these materials. Organizations such as NASA are planning to send people to Mars in the next 15 years. SpaceX, a private company, wants to get people there by 2020. (In January 2018, the company sent the world's heaviest rocket - called Falcon Heavy - barreling toward the Martian neighborhood. It carried a sportscar.) A third solution might be to develop a medication that can block the harmful effects of radiation from inside an astronaut's body. Such a drug does not yet exist.

And, with medicine, there's another cause for pause. Astronaut urine is recycled for drinking water. Scientists would have to make sure any treatment for radiation is safe no matter where it ended up, every time it passed through a body.

"I don't think that we'll ever get to the point that we completely mitigate the risk," says Carnell. "So the ultimate goal is to reduce the risk as much as possible."

Brawn and brains

Astronauts face other health risks from space travel. Those include the loss of bone and muscle. Meir, the astronaut, says the International Space Station includes equipment that can help limit that. Onboard the ISS is the ARED. This stands for Advanced Resistive Exercise Device. The machine uses vacuum tubes to provide resistance to movements - as weights do in the gym.

Astronauts on the ISS work out with ARED two hours each day. This should cut muscle or bone mass, Meir says: "That's one of the big things we have solved."

The ISS has plenty of room for the ARED. The first spacecraft to Mars won't be nearly as spacious. So engineers are developing smaller exercise equipment for these craft. Exercise, after all, will remain a critical health issue for people travelling into deep space, Meir says.

Scientists planning for Martian missions also need to think about what goes on in an astronaut's head. Rachael Seidler is a kinesiologist (Kih-NEES-ee-OL-oh-gizt) at the University of Florida, in Gainesville. (Kinesiology is the study of how bodies move.) She has been investigating how space travel alters the brain.

Seidler and her team studied brain scans from 27 astronauts who had been in space. Fourteen had spent six months on the ISS. The rest had spent about two weeks on a space shuttle.

Living in space led to surprising changes. Seidler's team identified places in the brain where the amount of gray matter had either decreased or increased. Gray matter includes nerve cell bodies, which are like the control center for these cells.

Seidler doesn't think the decreases suggest astronauts are losing brain cells. Instead, she suspects that fluids - including those around the brain - move around freely in the microgravity of space. Those shifts may have caused some of the changes she observed.

"Your brain is kind of floating a little bit higher in the skull than it does on Earth," she explains. As a result, "There's a redistribution of fluids." That's one reason, she says, "If you look at photos of astronauts when they first go into space, they have this puffy-face look."

That also may help explain some symptoms seen in returning astronauts. The longer they had spent in space, the more dramatic the changes to their gray matter.

Upon returning to Earth, they often have difficulty with balance and hand-eye coordination. They can't drive a car for a few weeks, sometimes for months. They must undergo physical therapy to get used to gravity again.

Her team reported its results in December 2016 in Nature Microgravity.

Seidler says she wants to figure out if some of these effects are linked to the brain changes she's observed. This research could be useful for future missions, since going to Mars means more time in space and possibly more brain changes.

These experiments also may help scientists understand brain changes in the elderly. As people age, they may show symptoms similar to what astronauts experience upon returning to Earth: problems with balance and vision, for example.

In the lab, Seidler has been leading bed-rest studies. Her volunteers lie down on a bed for months at a time. During and afterward, the researchers record brain scans of each volunteer.

These show that bed-rest changes the brain in ways similar to what is seen in astronauts. No longer pulled toward the feet by gravity, the fluids in the bodies of bed-rest volunteers move around. Their brains may rise up in their bodies a bit, says Seidler. Bed-rest volunteers also can get the same face puffiness.

These results offer clues to how the brain changes as the brain and body experience the world differently than when just standing up.

Of course, the studies are tricky. They require finding people willing to lie around for months. Seidler is about to launch a study that will require people to lie down for 60 days. She is the first to admit it doesn't sound like fun. "The idea of maybe lying around in bed for a weekend sounds okay," she says. "But anything more than that sounds awful."

Space on Earth

Getting people to lie down isn't the only way to simulate space. Researchers do it right on Earth in specialized environments.

In January, Ryan Kobrick began a two-week stay at a two-story building in the Utah desert to see how much dust from the outside leaks to the inside as people come and go. Those studies could help scientists predict how dust on the moon or Mars might affect life away from Earth.

Kobrick is a former astronaut. Now he works as an engineer at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.

Meir, the astronaut, has participated in a NASA program called NEEMO. (NEEMO stands for NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations.) In this project, a small group of researchers live and work together in Aquarius. It's an underwater research station in the Atlantic Ocean, some 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) off the Florida island of Key Largo. Experiences there are designed to mimic spaceflight. Crew members have to work together to complete tasks and solve problems.

Meir also participated in a simulation program with the European Space Agency. It's called CAVES (an acronym for Cooperative Adventure for Valuing and Exercising human behavior and performance Skills). Six crew members - including ones from Russia, China, Spain and Italy - spent two weeks together in a deep cave in Italy. They wore space suits and had to rely on each other as they performed various tasks. This included exploring and mapping unknown sections of the cave. Such exploration required working in teams to climb steep cliffs or rappel down. The team also observed and documented the organisms that found alive in the deep.

"It was the coolest experience of my life," Meir recalls. The caves looked like another planet and the views were extraordinary, she says. She saw spectacular formations made out of rock, never before seen by human eyes. "We were like characters in science fiction - like The Hobbit or Lord of The Rings," she says.

The CAVES experience, Meir notes, showed the importance of building a crew for outer space that's made of people who get along.

Experience has shown that getting along is important for astronauts. "Persistent danger and stress can take a toll," says Kozlowski, the psychologist. "People can irritate you. If you dislike somebody, they can impede effectiveness."

Kozlowski has been studying participants in a NASA program called HI-SEAS (short for Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation). Participants live together in a small, dome-shaped habitat on the side of a Hawaiian volcano. The living conditions have been designed to mimic a mission to Mars.

Teamwork is key

In February 2018, the sixth HI-SEAS crew began its eight-month stay. Recruits will be isolated in the habitat for the entire time. While there, they will have to work together, cooking meals or exploring the barren terrain outside the habitat. When they leave the dome, they will don space suits. They will work, eat and sleep as if they're living on the Red Planet.

By day, crewmembers will answer surveys on how things are going. "They report on whether they've had conflicts with other people, or problems with their work," notes Kozlowski. His team will study these surveys to look at the mission from beginning to end. They want to identify the earliest signs of any conflicts. Reducing those tensions is essential to making Mars missions a reality.

Conflict was less of an issue during the 1960s, the era of the Apollo missions. Why? Those missions were short. The pioneers of space flight spent a week or less in orbit. Still, on missions short and long, astronauts have to cooperate to succeed.

Frank Borman's barfing experience on Apollo 8 is a perfect example. On that December day in 1968, fellow astronaut Jim Lovell came to Borman's aid. He helped clean up. "Lovell, as I recall, squirted it out the urine dump system or something," Borman recalled.

In 1985, astronaut Jake Garn also became nauseous on a space flight. (Garn, a senator from 1974 until 1993, was the first member of the U.S. Congress to go into space.) His queasiness didn't last long: He soon felt better and was able to do his job. But for a while it had been touch and go. After he returned from space, NASA jokingly established the "Garn scale" as a way to measure space sickness. (A comic strip from the time called him "Barfin' Jake Garn," but he never actually threw up.) The sicker you got, the higher your score on the Garn scale.

In an interview from 2005, Garn reflected on his famous bout of nausea in space. He said he had no regrets. Even with all its hazards and risks, Garn said no experience on Earth was comparable to getting away from it all in space.

"Believe me," he said, "I'd throw up every day just to go into space again."

Power Words
More About Power Words

Apollo missions NASA's third human spaceflight program eventually took humans to the lunar surface. Along the way, this program sought to develop the technologies needed for long-distance space travel. It got a big kick-start after President John F. Kennedy proposed in 1961 creating the national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

asteroid A rocky object in orbit around the sun. Most asteroids orbit in a region that falls between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Astronomers refer to this region as the asteroid belt.

astronaut Someone trained to travel into space for research and exploration.

barf Slang for vomit.

BBs A type of small pellets, usually made from steel, which are fired by shotguns and air rifles. They can ricochet off of hard surfaces, making their use dangerous in confined spaces.

behavior The way something, often a person or other organism, acts towards others, or conducts itself.

brain scan A technique to view structures inside the brain, typically with X-rays or a magnetic resonance imaging (or MRI) machine. With MRI technology - especially the type known as functional MRI (or fMRI) - the activity of different brain regions can be viewed during an event, such as viewing pictures, computing sums or listening to music.

cancer Any of more than 100 different diseases, each characterized by the rapid, uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells. The development and growth of cancers, also known as malignancies, can lead to tumors, pain and death.

cardiovascular An adjective that refers to things that affect or are part of the heart and the system of vessels and arteries that move blood through the heart and tissues of the body.

cell The smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. Typically too small to see with the unaided eye, it consists of a watery fluid surrounded by a membrane or wall. Depending on their size, animals are made of anywhere from thousands to trillions of cells.

component Something that is part of something else (such as pieces that go on an electronic circuit board or ingredients that go into a cookie recipe).

Congress The part of the U.S. federal government charged with writing laws, setting the U.S. budget, and confirming many presidential appointments to the courts, to represent the U.S. government interests overseas and to run administrative agencies. The U.S. Congress is made of two parts: the Senate, consisting of two members from each state, and the House of Representatives, which consists of a total of 435 members, with at least one from each state (and dozens more for the states with the biggest populations).

cosmic rays Very high-energy particles, mostly protons, that bombard Earth from all directions. These particles originate outside our solar system. They are equivalent to the nucleus of an atom. They travel through space at high rates of speed (often close to the speed of light).

element (in chemistry) Each of more than one hundred substances for which the smallest unit of each is a single atom. Examples include hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, lithium and uranium.

engineer A person who uses science to solve problems. As a verb, to engineer means to design a device, material or process that will solve some problem or unmet need.

fiction (adj. fictional) An idea or a story that is made-up, not a depiction of real events.

gravity The force that attracts anything with mass, or bulk, toward any other thing with mass. The more mass that something has, the greater its gravity.

gray matter One of two main types of tissue found in the brain and spinal cord. It consists mainly of nerve cell bodies.

habitat The area or natural environment in which an animal or plant normally lives, such as a desert, coral reef or freshwater lake. A habitat can be home to thousands of different species.

International Space Station An artificial satellite that orbits Earth. Run by the United States and Russia, this station provides a research laboratory from which scientists can conduct experiments in biology, physics and astronomy - and make observations of Earth.

iron A metallic element that is common within minerals in Earth's crust and in its hot core. This metal also is found in cosmic dust and in many meteorites.

journal (in science) A publication in which scientists share their research findings with experts (and sometimes even the public). Some journals publish papers from all fields of science, technology, engineering and math, while others are specific to a single subject. The best journals are peer-reviewed: They send all submitted articles to outside experts to be read and critiqued. The goal, here, is to prevent the publication of mistakes, fraud or sloppy work.

laser A device that generates an intense beam of coherent light of a single color. Lasers are used in drilling and cutting, alignment and guidance, in data storage and in surgery.

liquid A material that flows freely but keeps a constant volume, like water or oil.

lithium A soft, silvery metallic element. It's the lightest of all metals and very reactive. It is used in batteries and ceramics.

magnetosphere The region surrounding Earth (or another astronomical body) in which its magnetic field protects the planet from the solar wind.

Mars The fourth planet from the sun, just one planet out from Earth. Like Earth, it has seasons and moisture. But its diameter is only about half as big as Earth's.

mass A number that shows how much an object resists speeding up and slowing down - basically a measure of how much matter that object is made from.

matter Something that occupies space and has mass. Anything on Earth with matter will have a property described as "weight."

microgravity Gravity that is a fraction of the force experienced at sea level on Earth.

molecule An electrically neutral group of atoms that represents the smallest possible amount of a chemical compound. Molecules can be made of single types of atoms or of different types. For example, the oxygen in the air is made of two oxygen atoms (O ₂), but water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (H ₂ O).

moon The natural satellite of any planet.

muscle A type of tissue used to produce movement by contracting its cells, known as muscle fibers. Muscle is rich in protein, which is why predatory species seek prey containing lots of this tissue.

NASA Short for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Created in 1958, this U.S. agency has become a leader in space research and in stimulating public interest in space exploration. It was through NASA that the United States sent people into orbit and ultimately to the moon. It also has sent research craft to study planets and other celestial objects in our solar system.

nausea Feeling sick to one's stomach, as though one could vomit.

nerve A long, delicate fiber that transmits signals across the body of an animal. An animal's backbone contains many nerves, some of which control the movement of its legs or fins, and some of which convey sensations such as hot, cold or pain.

nervous system The network of nerve cells and fibers that transmits signals between parts of the body.

neuroscientist Someone who studies the structure or function of the brain and other parts of the nervous system.

orbit The curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet or moon. One complete circuit around a celestial body.

organ (in biology) Various parts of an organism that perform one or more particular functions. For instance, an ovary is an organ that makes eggs, the brain is an organ that makes sense of nerve signals and a plant's roots are organs that take in nutrients and moisture.

particle A minute amount of something.

persistent An adjective for something that is long-lasting.

physical (adj.) A term for things that exist in the real world, as opposed to in memories or the imagination. It can also refer to properties of materials that are due to their size and non-chemical interactions (such as when one block slams with force into another).

planet A celestial object that orbits a star, is big enough for gravity to have squashed it into a roundish ball and has cleared other objects out of the way in its orbital neighborhood. To accomplish the third feat, the object must be big enough to have pulled neighboring objects into the planet itself or to have slung them around the planet and off into outer space.

psychological An adjective that refers to how the human mind works, especially in relation to guiding actions and behavior.

psychologist A scientist or mental-health professional who studies the human mind, especially in relation to actions and behaviors.

radiation (in physics) One of the three major ways that energy is transferred. (The other two are conduction and convection.) In radiation, electromagnetic waves carry energy from one place to another. Unlike conduction and convection, which need material to help transfer the energy, radiation can transfer energy across empty space.

rappel To travel down a cliff or other near-vertical rock face by sliding along a rope while periodically kicking off against the surface with your legs.

Red Planet A nickname for Mars.

risk The chance or mathematical likelihood that some bad thing might happen. For instance, exposure to radiation poses a risk of cancer. Or the hazard - or peril - itself. (For instance: Among cancer risks that the people faced were radiation and drinking water tainted with arsenic.)

science fiction A field of literary or filmed stories that take place against a backdrop of fantasy, usually based on speculations about how science and engineering will direct developments in the distant future. The plots in many of these stories focus on space travel, exaggerated changes attributed to evolution or life in (or on) alien worlds.

sea An ocean (or region that is part of an ocean). Unlike lakes and streams, seawater - or ocean water - is salty.

silicon A nonmetal, semiconducting element used in making electronic circuits. Pure silicon exists in a shiny, dark-gray crystalline form and as a shapeless powder.

simulation (v. simulate) An analysis, often made using a computer, of some conditions, functions or appearance of a physical system. A computer program would do this by using mathematical operations that can describe the system and how it might change over time or in response to different anticipated situations.

stress (in biology) A factor - such as unusual temperatures, movements, moisture or pollution - that affects the health of a species or ecosystem. (in psychology) A mental, physical, emotional or behavioral reaction to an event or circumstance (stressor) that disturbs a person or animal's usual state of being or places increased demands on a person or animal; psychological stress can be either positive or negative.

survey (v.) To ask questions that glean data on the opinions, practices (such as dining or sleeping habits), knowledge or skills of a broad range of people. Researchers select the number and types of people questioned in hopes that the answers these individuals give will be representative of others who are their age, belong to the same ethnic group or live in the same region. (n.) The list of questions that will be offered to glean those data.

symptom A physical or mental indicator generally regarded to be characteristic of a disease. Sometimes a single symptom - especially a general one, such as fever or pain - can be a sign of any of many different types of injury or disease.

terrain The land in a particular area and whatever covers it. The term might refer to anything from a smooth, flat and dry landscape to a mountainous region covered with boulders, bogs and forest cover.

therapy (adj. therapeutic) Treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder.

tissue Made of cells, any of the distinct types of materials that make up animals, plants or fungi. Cells within a tissue work as a unit to perform a particular function in living organisms. Different organs of the human body, for instance, often are made from many different types of tissues.

van Allen belts Two belts, an inner and outer one, surrounding Earth. They consist of cosmic rays - charged particles (electrons and protons). The belts extend from about 13,000 to 60,000 kilometers (8,100 to 37,300 miles) above the planet's surface. The high-energy particles, a type of radiation, vary over time and altitude and pose a health risk to exposed space travelers.

Stephen Ornes lives in Nashville, Tenn., and his family has two rabbits, six chickens and a cat. He has written for Science News for Students since 2008 on topics including lightning, feral pigs, big bubbles and space junk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
En route to Mars, astronauts may face big health risks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frank Borman was probably the first person to barf in space. Borman was part of NASA's Apollo 8 mission, which lifted off a launch pad in Florida on December 21, 1968. Over the next six days, the mission made history as it circled the moon and returned home.

# data[].attributes.body
Mars One is planned to be a one way trip to mars for volunteers to establish a colony. The plan is highly contested and has been called a money grab. This article from MIT goes over some of the problems with their current plan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2012, the "Mars One" project, led by a Dutch nonprofit, announced plans to establish the first human colony on the Red Planet by 2025. The mission would initially send four astronauts on a one-way trip to Mars, where they would spend the rest of their lives building the first permanent human settlement.

It's a bold vision - particularly since Mars One claims that the entire mission can be built upon technologies that already exist. As its website states, establishing humans on Mars would be "the next giant leap for mankind."

But engineers at MIT say the project may have to take a step back, at least to reconsider the mission's technical feasibility.

The MIT researchers developed a detailed settlement-analysis tool to assess the feasibility of the Mars One mission, and found that new technologies will be needed to keep humans alive on Mars.

For example, if all food is obtained from locally grown crops, as Mars One envisions, the vegetation would produce unsafe levels of oxygen, which would set off a series of events that would eventually cause human inhabitants to suffocate. To avoid this scenario, a system to remove excess oxygen would have to be implemented - a technology that has not yet been developed for use in space.

Similarly, the Mars Phoenix lander discovered evidence of ice on the Martian surface in 2008, suggesting that future settlers might be able to melt ice for drinking water - another Mars One goal. But according to the MIT analysis, current technologies designed to "bake" water from soil are not yet ready for deployment, particularly in space.

The team also performed an integrated analysis of spare-parts resupply - how many spare parts would have to be delivered to a Martian colony at each opportunity to keep it going. The researchers found that as the colony grows, spare parts would quickly dominate future deliveries to Mars, making up as much as 62 percent of payloads from Earth.

As for the actual voyage to Mars, the team also calculated the number of rockets required to establish the first four settlers and subsequent crews on the planet, as well as the journey's cost.

According to the Mars One plan, six Falcon Heavy rockets would be required to send up initial supplies, before the astronauts' arrival. But the MIT assessment found that number to be "overly optimistic": The team determined that the needed supplies would instead require 15 Falcon Heavy rockets. The transportation cost for this leg of the mission alone, combined with the astronauts' launch, would be $4.5 billion - a cost that would grow with additional crews and supplies to Mars. The researchers say this estimate does not include the cost of developing and purchasing equipment for the mission, which would further increase the overall cost.

Olivier de Weck, an MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics and engineering systems, says the prospect of building a human settlement on Mars is an exciting one. To make this goal a reality, however, will require innovations in a number of technologies and a rigorous systems perspective, he says.

"We're not saying, black and white, Mars One is infeasible," de Weck says. "But we do think it's not really feasible under the assumptions they've made. We're pointing to technologies that could be helpful to invest in with high priority, to move them along the feasibility path."

" One of the great insights we were able to get was just how hard it is to pull this [mission] off," says graduate student Sydney Do. "There are just so many unknowns. And to give anyone confidence that they're going to get there and stay alive - there's still a lot of work that needs to be done."

Do and de Weck presented their analysis this month at the International Astronautical Congress in Toronto. Co-authors include MIT graduate students Koki Ho, Andrew Owens, and Samuel Schreiner.
Simulating a day on Mars
The group took a systems-based approach in analyzing the Mars One mission, first assessing various aspects of the mission's architecture, such as its habitat, life-support systems, spare-parts requirements, and transportation logistics, then looking at how each component contributes to the whole system.

For the habitat portion, Do simulated the day-to-day life of a Mars colonist. Based on the typical work schedule, activity levels, and metabolic rates of astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), Do estimated that a settler would have to consume about 3,040 calories daily to stay alive and healthy on Mars. He then determined crops that would provide a reasonably balanced diet, including beans, lettuce, peanuts, potatoes, and rice.

Do calculated that producing enough of these crops to sustain astronauts over the long term would require about 200 square meters of growing area, compared with Mars One's estimate of 50 square meters. If, as the project plans, crops are cultivated within the settlers' habitat, Do found that they would produce unsafe levels of oxygen that would exceed fire safety thresholds, requiring continuous introduction of nitrogen to reduce the oxygen level. Over time, this would deplete nitrogen tanks, leaving the habitat without a gas to compensate for leaks.

As the air inside the habitat continued to leak, the total atmospheric pressure would drop, creating an oppressive environment that would suffocate the first settler within an estimated 68 days.

Possible solutions, Do says, might include either developing a technology to extract excess oxygen or isolating the crops in a separate greenhouse. The team even considered using nitrogen extracted from the Martian atmosphere, but found that doing so would require a prohibitively large system. Surprisingly, the cheapest option found was to supply all the food required from Earth.

"We found carrying food is always cheaper than growing it locally," Do says. "On Mars, you need lighting and watering systems, and for lighting, we found it requires 875 LED systems, which fail over time. So you need to provide spare parts for that, making the initial system heavier."
Twisting the knobs
As the team found, spare parts, over time, would substantially inflate the cost of initial and future missions to Mars. Owens, who assessed the resupply of spare parts, based his analysis on reliability data derived from NASA repair logs for given components on the ISS.

"The ISS is based on the idea that if something breaks, you can call home and get a new part quickly," says Owens. "If you want a spare part on Mars, you have to send it when a launch window is open, every 26 months, and then wait 180 days for it to get there. If you could make spares in-situ, that would be a massive savings."

Owens points to technologies such as 3-D printing, which may enable settlers to manufacture spare parts on Mars. But the technology as it exists today is not advanced enough to reproduce the exact dimensions and functions of many space-rated parts. The MIT analysis found that 3-D printers will have to improve by leaps, or else the entire Mars settlement infrastructure will have to be redesigned so that its parts can be printed with existing technology.

While this analysis may make the Mars One program look daunting, the researchers say the settlement-analysis tool they've developed may help determine the feasibility of various scenarios. For example, rather than sending crews on one-way trips to the planet, what would the overall mission cost be if crews were occasionally replaced?

"Mars One is a pretty radical idea," Schreiner says. "Now we've built a tool that we can play around with, and we can twist some of the knobs to see how the cost and feasibility of the mission changes."

Tracy Gill, a technology strategy manager at NASA, says the tool may be applicable for assessing other missions to Mars, and points to a few scenarios that the group may want to explore using the settlement-analysis tool.

"This [tool] can provide a benefit to mission planners by allowing them to evaluate a larger spectrum of mission architectures with better confidence in their analysis," says Gill, who did not contribute to the research. "Included among those architectures would be options ranging from completely growing all food in situ with bioregenerative systems, to packaging all food products from Earth, to various combination of those two extremes."

Some of the students on this project were supported by NASA fellowships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2012, the "Mars One" project, led by a Dutch nonprofit, announced plans to establish the first human colony on the Red Planet by 2025. The mission would initially send four astronauts on a one-way trip to Mars, where they would spend the rest of their lives building the first permanent human settlement.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses some new technology that could aid an exploration to mars.  Marsbees are small bug-like drones, that are created for resilience and data collection. These bees are technology that will hopefully be used in helping scientists collect new information for the future colonization of mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marsbees are robotic flapping wing flyers of a bumblebee size with cicada sized wings. The Marsbees are integrated with sensors and wireless communication devices. The mobile base can act as a recharging station and main communication center. The swarm of Marsbee can significantly enhance the Mars exploration mission with the following benefits: i) Facilitating reconfigurable sensor networks; ii) Creation of resilient systems; iii) Sample or data collection using single or collaborative Marsbees.
Key technical innovation includes the use of insect-like compliant wings to enhance aerodynamics and a low power design. High lift coefficients will be achieved by properly achieving dynamic similarity between the bioinspired insect flight regime and the Mars environment. Our preliminary numerical results suggest that a bumblebee with a cicada wing can generate sufficient lift to hover in the Martian atmosphere. Moreover, the power required by the Marsbee will be substantially reduced by utilizing compliant wing structures and an innovative energy harvesting mechanism. Because of the ultra-low Martian density, the power is dominated by the inertial power. A torsional spring mounted at the wing root to temporarily store otherwise wasted energy and reduce the overall inertial power at resonance. Whereas rotary wing concepts are much more mature in both design and control, these two innovations are uniquely suited to bioinspired flapping vehicles and provide flying near the Martian terrain as a viable means of mobility.

From a systems engineering perspective, the Marsbee offers many benefits over traditional aerospace systems. The smaller volume, designed for the interplanetary spacecraft payload configuration, provides much more flexibility. Also, the Marsbee inherently offers more robustness to individual system failures. Because of its relatively small size and the small volume of airspace needed to test the system, it can be validated in a variety of accessible testing facilities.

The proposed work combines expertise and talent from the US and Japan in a multidisciplinary program to address fundamental aspects of flapping wing flight in Martian atmosphere. The University of Alabama in Huntsville team will numerically model, analyze, and optimize a flapping flyer for Martian atmospheric conditions. The Japanese team will develop and test a micro flapping robot, uniquely designed and constructed for the low-density atmosphere on Mars. The hummingbird Micro-Air Vehicle (MAV), developed by the Japanese team is one of only a few robotic flappers in the world that can fly on Earth.

The objective of Phase I is to determine the wing design, motion, and weight that can hover with optimal power in the Mars atmospheric condition using a high-fidelity numerical model and to assess the hummingbird MAV in the Mars conditions. The aerodynamic performance of the hummingbird MAV will be assessed in a vacuum chamber with the air density reduced to the Mars density. Systems engineering optimization will be performed as well for the entire mission. The maneuverability, wind gust rejection, take-off/landing, power implications, remote sensing, and mission optimization will be addressed in Phase II.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robotic bumble bee sized drones will explore Mars by flying with flapping insect like wings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marsbees are robotic flapping wing flyers of a bumblebee size with cicada sized wings. The Marsbees are integrated with sensors and wireless communication devices. The mobile base can act as a recharging station and main communication center.

# data[].attributes.body
Synthetic biologists have proposed an idea on how to grow plants on Mars despite the poor conditions, which would solve some of the food-based limitations of living there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even though plans to colonize Mars are progressing rapidly, it is very hard to actually comprehend what a permanent life out there would be like. One can't help but imagine it to be pretty Earth-centric; we will need to design spaces and resource solutions that provide what we need and use down here, out there. Food will definitely be an issue; sushi is probably off the menu entirely and fresh produce will become a rare and precious commodity. Hydroponic greenhouses, which are already in the testing phase at the International Space Station, are one solution for growing fresh produce on site. The success of these greenhouses, and other Mars-based initiatives, is based on their ability to mimic conditions on Earth. However, maintaining these conditions will be hugely energy-intensive to support, as well as require constant refuelling from Earth, which greatly hinders the feasibility of long-term life on Mars. But like many challenges, sometimes we need to look at the problem from a different angle to find a solution.

It is said that the most innovative and revolutionary ideas are forged at the boundaries of different disciplines of thinking. Perhaps, instead of taking our Earth-based living to Mars, we could design our Earth-based living to be more Martian. When research at the macro, astronomical level meets research at the micro, molecular level, this radical and unrealistic idea starts to get some traction. Synthetic biology, and the designing and reshaping of living organisms, could offer new solutions for these daunting outer space challenges. Recently, three local, Aussie-based synthetic biologists published a paper outlining some of synbio-based solutions for realistically establishing human life on Mars. Briardo Llorente, Thomas Williams, and Hugh Goold, based at Macquarie University in New South Wales, outline some accomplishments in the synbio field that could already offer some solutions, as well as provide new and exciting synbio goals for novel, Mars-focused solutions.

Llorente et al. focus on plants, a vital Earth-based life source for inhabiting Mars for longer than just an outer space visit. They describe how cold-tolerant and drought resistant plants, engineered for increased survival on Earth, could be useful. Such traits would be important in a Martian-adapted version of our Earth-based plants, given that conditions on Mars are significantly colder and more arid. Excitingly, they also propose new and feasible biological designs for these hypothetically Martian plants. Modifying biological processes and transferring pathways from one organism into another are not trivial goals, but are a hallmark accomplishment of synbio research. For example, the authors suggest that plants growing on Martian land could acquire nitrogen (an essential nutrient supplied in fertilizers), by sucking it up directly from the atmosphere, through synbio accomplishment of transferring the nitrogen fixation pathway from microbes into plants.

Increasing edible biomass would also be extremely beneficial to these "Mars-adapted" plants, and the authors suggest numerous synbio approaches for doing so, including redesigning root architecture for improved nutrient uptake, or improving photosynthetic productivity. Photosynthesis is sub-optimal in plants with a lot of room for improvement. Increasing photosynthetic productivity would be highly beneficial, as Mars only experiences about 43% of Earth's sunlight intensity. Earth-based plants are also only able to use light from the visible part of the light spectrum, but synbio engineering could generate plants that can photosynthesise using non-visible, UV light, which is abundant on Mars. These are just some of the ideas proposed in the article for creating Mars-adapted plants and we highly recommend checking out their paper for more.

While the article focuses on plant synbio, the authors have not neglected the potential for engineered microbes to make Mars more habitable for humans and carbon-based life. A huge amount of work in the synbio field has focused on engineering microbes to manufacture a variety of products, such as chemicals, medicines, fibers, and polymers, in a more sustainable and efficient manner than traditional methods. Since it is vital that production systems on Mars be as sustainable and efficient as possible, these already existing microbes could offer realistic solutions for reducing reliance on supplies from earth. There is even more possibility when the Mars-specific problems are built into the design brief. For example, the authors describe a hypothetical microbe engineered to condition Martian soil by expressing enzymes to reduce perchlorates, the toxic compounds found on Mars, while also expressing extracellular polysaccharides to promote soil adhesion.

The publication by Llorente et al. offers an exciting overview of the potential for synthetic biology to bring life on Mars to reality. A Mars bio foundry compiling synbio parts and pathways for solving many production and food-based limitations on Mars would decrease reliance on Earth based resources. This is critical, not only because of resource limitations, but also because of the cost of time and monies on continuous cargo delivery. However, it is strange to think that one of the most realistic solutions to overcome these limitations is in fact not Earth-centric at all, but instead require a great deal of creative thinking within the rules of biological design. On Earth, plants and microbes adapted over hundreds of millions of years through random mutations to become what we depend on today. The tools and knowledge we have acquired to understand, design and manipulate these biological systems at a genetic level means we have a new type of technology- a living, breathing, biological technology- to make this spectacular endeavour a reality.
Jestin George is a PhD student at the University of Technology Sydney, working on genetically engineering the diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum for applications in biotechnology. She is member of the executive board and assistant communications officer of Synthetic Biology Australasia. Read more about her work here, or follow her on Twitter
A version of this article was originally published on Synthetic Biology Australasia's website as " Synthetic biology solutions for Mars colonization" and has been republished here with permission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using synthetic biology to help humans adapt to a life on Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though plans to colonize Mars are progressing rapidly, it is very hard to actually comprehend what a permanent life out there would be like. One can't help but imagine it to be pretty Earth-centric; we will need to design spaces and resource solutions that provide what we need and use down here, out there.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes reasons why we SHOULD NOT colonize mars. Within this article it provides 10 basic reasons of why not with supporting evidence. Some reasons include landscape, temperature and comfortability, and atmospheric issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mars is a fascinating planet, the most like Earth of all the planets in the solar system, and may help us to understand much about the origins of life on Earth. Undoubtedly, it's a wonderful place to explore, especially with augmented reality vision. But though it was quite Earth-like in its first few hundred million years, it is not at all Earth like now. Earth remains by far the most habitable place in our solar system. The most inhospitable places on Earth, such as Antarctica, even in the depths of winter, and at the centre of the continent, are far more habitable than anywhere else in our solar system. Space colonies and the poles of the Moon, are both more easily habitable than Mars, and more easy to make self sufficient. Why is that? Read on to find out more.

You see so many news stories about the possibility of humans colonizing Mars, and many readers may get really excited by the idea. But few of these stories mention the many drawbacks and downsides of human colonization. I thought it might help redress the balance to talk about this.

Note, this article runs to an estimated 33 printed pages. You can now get it as a kindle book, if you prefer, for $0.99 + VAT.

Ten Reasons NOT to Live on Mars - Great Place to Explore

1. Cold

You would agree that the center of Antarctica in winter is cold, not the best of places to set up home? Well Mars is far colder. At the Curiosity site, which is close to the equator, typical night time temperatures are -70 °C. Occasionally it drops to below -100 °C. It is often cold enough for the CO ₂ in the atmosphere to freeze out as dry ice. A human couldn't survive those temperatures without technology.

Average temperatures on Mars are similar to Antarctica. The only reason the entire planet isn't covered in ice is because it has so little water to turn into ice, and as the atmosphere is a near vacuum, the ice sublimates into water vapour (like dry ice) and collects at the poles.

It gets warm at midday, briefly, can go over 0 °C. So is not cold all the time, but the average temperature is similar to Antarctica, and it has these huge temperature swings of 70 °C, sometimes more, between day and night, just about every day. You can check the current Mars weather for Curiosity.

Maximum temperature for the sol in red, minimum in blue, data from Curiosity Rover REMs weather station on Mars.The light blue (cyan) line shows the temperature -78°C at which dry ice sublimates into carbon dioxide gas.Night time temperatures even in equatorial regions are often well below this temperature And winter midday temperatures, warmest part of the day are typically well below -20 °C. The average temperatures vary from around -30°C to well below -50°C.

It's not too surprising if you think about our Mount Everest, which is also near the equator, but with thinner air (a third of sea level though still fifty times denser than Mars "air"), it has average summit temperatures varying from -35°C in the coldest month to -20° C in the warmest month. From late December to early January the summit of Mount Everest never rises above -33C.

Check out also Opportunity's solar panel temperatures - at night these got very cold, below the sublimation temperature of dry ice every night, Martian winter or summer. Opportunity is almost at the equator, landed 1.95 degrees South (Spirit landed 14.57 degrees South and Curiosity landed 4.5 degrees South).

Mars might not look as cold as Antarctica, because it has ice only at its poles. But that's because of the thin atmosphere. Over most of the surface, ice sublimes directly to water vapour without ever turning liquid. There is also not much water vapour. As a result it is extremely dry near the equator, cold enough so that it would have a permanent ice cover, like Antarctica, except that it is too dry, and the atmosphere is too thin to support it.

If you are just looking for new land for humans to live in, there are many uninhabited areas of Earth that could be made habitable with the levels of technology proposed for Mars. It makes much more sense to colonize Canada, or Siberia, or the Inner Hebrides of Scotland (where I live) or the Arizona or Sahara deserts, or indeed the sea bed, than Mars.

For undersea colonies, see The Long, Ongoing Dream of Undersea Colonies, Atlantica Undersea Colony - idea to build a city under the sea off Florida and Phil Pauley's ideas for Sub Biosphere 2 which applies some of the ideas for space habitats such as hydroponic based growing food to a sea colony - which submerges itself below the sea.

Phil Pauley's concept design for sub biosphere 2 - it's able to lower itself to the sea floor (video). and video here

For more sea colony ideas and the background to it, and early experiments, see also the Long Ongoing Dream of Undersea Colonies (Discover Magazine, June 2012) and Underwater Habitat (wikipedia).

If you are especially keen to set up a space colony, rather than one on the Earth, then a colony close to Earth, closer to the sun, and without the night time shielding effect of a planet would be like the tropics compared to Mars. Why colonize Antarctica first, when you can colonize the tropics?

2. Vacuum

Yes Mars does have an atmosphere, it's true. But it is so thin, it would count as a laboratory vacuum on Earth. For most purposes, you might as well be in space or on the Moon.

A human would need to put on a spacesuit to survive the low pressure, never mind the lack of oxygen. The pressure is so low, your saliva and the moisture coating the interior of your lungs would boil. The average Mars surface pressure is well below the 6% Armstrong limit which absolutely is the limit for human survival. Average surface pressure is about 0.6% of Earth sea level. A leak in your spacesuit would kill you quickly. No oxygen to speak of either.

The atmosphere does have some benefits, as a source of CO ₂, but even then, is low pressure so has to be pressurized to be useful. In a space colony, then you could make CO ₂ from the carbonaceous near Earth asteroids; it's not that hard to find ways to make it in space if you expand your habitat e.g. with greenhouses and need more atmosphere. And our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, only 0.04% CO ₂, and CO 2 levels above 1% are hazardous to humans.

The CO ₂ on Mars has some value for making rocket fuel, using imported hydrogen as a feedstock. But again, rocket fuel in the form of water is abundant in many places, even available at the poles of the Moon, so this is not a major advantage of Mars over anywhere else.

So again that's not a major benefit over space or the Moon.

3. The "it's been done" syndrome

Okay I know that Mars hasn't "been done" yet. But many explorers who want to colonize Mars have as their main motivation that it is new. They aren't interested in colonizing the Moon, because it has already "been done". They just want to be the first people on a new planet. If that's your motivation, then remember, as soon as the first colonists arrive on Mars then it will already "be done". For a colony to survive it would need massive support from Earth, billions of dollars every few years.

Those of us who lived through the Apollo landings will remember how much excitement there was about the first landings - and then within just two or three years, it became boring to the public, to see astronauts on the Moon, because "it has been done already". Apart from occasional moments of human interest such as the first time a golf ball was hit on the Moon, the general public lost interest totally and the news dropped to the back pages of the papers.

Eventually the public lost interest in the Moon except for occasional highlights such as the first golf ball hit on the Moon, which probably did travel a mile or so, making it unofficially probably the longest golf drive ever.

For scientists, the Apollo missions stopped immediately after the most interesting mission to the Moon, Apollo 17, once it was safe enough to send a geologist, not just test pilots, the first true geological "field mission" on the moon. Much about the Moon is still unknown and can only be discovered on the ground.

The same would likely happen to Mars, if astronauts are sent there mainly for a political aim, to be first to get humans to Mars. Missions done for scientific reasons like the settlements in Antarctica can last indefinitely, continually producing new and interesting discoveries.

The same would surely happen with colonists on Mars. Just as the Moon may seem boring to you now, well same would be true of Mars after a few years.

4. Dust and Dust storms

Every Martian summer, roughly every two Earth years, you get a higher chance of global dust storms. These can last for weeks, and the light from the sun drops by over 99%. Here is a photo showing progression of a dust storm as seen by Opportunity.

In the middle of this dust storm, less than 1% of the light that reaches the top of the Mars atmosphere made its way to the ground where Opportunity photographed it.

These storms often continue for weeks on end, and the dust storm season happens every two Earth years. In dust storms like this, artificial light is needed to grow plants, solar power won't work, and the dust is also potentially hazardous for humans. And you won't see far from your hab or if you try to travel.

Though the winds are not hazardous - the dust is as fine as talcum powder, or cigarette smoke, or they wouldn't be lifted at all - and the atmosphere is a near vacuum. The strongest winds would barely move an autumn leaf.

This gif animation by Emily Lakdawalla shows how the sun faded during the dust storm as viewed from Opportunity. There's a big gap at the end where the sun was too dark to do these images. See her post from 2007: Dust storm update: rovers still OK

During the dust storms, then artificial light is needed in middle of the day to grow crops, and you won't be able to see anything. Solar power won't work.

As a minor point, the dust itself may be hazardous to humans. Some studies showed that moon dust may be somewhat hazardous - not as much so as asbestos, but enough to be of concern. Mars dust may be similar (we don't know its constitution well yet). It also has high levels of perchlorates, and may also have traces of gypsum, both of which could be hazardous to humans if breathed in.

This last issue may be addressable however. The surface of Mars is covered in dust. However, the suitport should help prevent explorers from bringing it into the habitat. Normally dust gets onto the suits and then would be brought into the habitat. Apollo astronauts found that dust got everywhere. It could also risk clogging up machinery. But with the suitport idea, the suit is never brought into the habitat, so reducing this risk.

Not much you can do about the darkness during the dust storms though except artificial lighting, and just sit them out.

5. Contamination

It is almost inevitable that a colony on Mars will eventually contaminate the planet with Earth micro-organisms. At current levels of technology, I don't see how that can be avoided. A human is host to about 100 trillion micro-organisms in 10,000 different species. A habitat would have many other micro-organisms too, in the food, in the soil, other supplies, and floating in the air.

Some of those may be able to reproduce on the surface, particularly lichens, and some hardy micro-organisms, polyextremophiles that may be able to survive in marginal habitats of cold salty brine that may form around deliquescing salts in the morning and evening. See my Might there be Microbes on the surface of Mars?. Some of these can do just fine in human habitats but have surprising hidden capabilities to survive in extreme conditions. The rovers are sterilized to prevent contamination - humans can't be.

Now if you aren't a scientist that mightn't bother you much. But back on Earth you would be known as the people who irreversibly contaminated Mars. You would probably get a fair bit of negative press for doing that, and through all the future of human history would probably be known as much as the humans who contaminated Mars as the first to colonize the planet. For some idea of the potential value of a pristine Mars see How Valuable is Pristine Mars for Humanity - Opinion Piece?

This would make it hard or impossible to tell whether or not any of the life forms you find on the planet are introduced Earth life or native (many micro-organisms on Earth are poorly characterized). It would also complicate experiments to look for trace biosignatures in the deposits on Mars, some of these sensitive enough to detect a single amino acid in a gram of soil.

The contamination could also affect your water supplies. There's also the possibility that it could evolve on the surface through adaptive radiation into new forms hazardous to humans, because the conditions are so different (strong UV, cosmic radiation etc). These then could return to the habitats some years later, still retaining their abilities to survive in a human habitat, but with extra capabilities from their evolution on the surface of Mars.

Some sources for contamination include

Habitat not completely self contained - e.g. maybe you need to dispose of human wastes outside the habitat - or some chemical builds up which needs to be vented to the exterior.

Spacesuits leak. The problem is - that the more flexible the spacesuit, then the more joints it has, and these continuously leak air. Could you contain micro-organisms within the spacesuit without them leaking out of the joints?

. It may be possible to do something about this, but no-one has yet designed an airlock that vents no air at all out of the spaceship. The suitport gets close to this, but is designed more to prevent dust getting into the cabin than to prevent air getting out. Some air would still escape, about a cubic foot in the current design of the suitport.Airlock

Accidents. E.g. spacesuit breached in an accident on the surface. Or one of the spaceships crashes during landing. Even if crew survive, the hull may be breached and contaminate Mars with the micro-organisms inside the habitat. If anyone dies, then that is a major contamination right away.

Suitport - astronaut crawls into this suit through the hole in its back, then the airlock is closed and he or she then walks on the surface carrying this portable airlock on his or her back.

This reduces the amount of air released from the interior of the spacecraft with each EVA but you'd still lose a cubic foot or so each time. Hard to see any way that air could be sterilized in typical spacecraft conditions.

Spacesuits also leak air constantly through the flexible bearings in the joints, another way microbes could escape to the surface.

And what if the astronaut has an accident on the surface which breaches the suit - or indeed - the ship itself has a hard landing and crashes on Mars with the contents strewn on the surface? After an accident like that, it might well be impossible to reverse contamination of Mars with Earth life - as microbes imbedded in dust grains are protected from UV light and can be spread anywhere on Mars in the global storms.

What it amounts to is that to contain contamination we would need to land a biohazard laboratory on Mars, with the crew and all its contents as the biohazard to be contained and kept away from the surface of Mars.

We don't have the technology to do that yet at a reasonable cost. Indeed I'm not sure it is possible at all with present day technology when you take account of possibilities of accidents and hard landings.

There is also the possibility of life already on the planet. Some scientists think there may be life on the surface even now in the harsh conditions there. If so, there is a remote possibility that it might be hazardous to humans. Could be a pathogen like Legionaire's disease which we are not immune to. Could be that it infects other micro-organisms so infects micro-organisms within the habitat. Or could be an allergen for humans, e.g. when you breath in the micro-organisms into your lungs. This chance is probably very low, but not impossible. It's been reviewed many times by biologists, and so far, no-one can really say for sure, they can't go so far as to say that it is impossible based on the scientific knowledge of Mars so far.

6. Unproven technology for self contained habitats

This also applies to space colonies too, but I suggest that it is best to work on this in space colonies close to Earth first, where you can deal with emergencies more easily.

The ISS is not at all self contained. They can't even wash their clothes, but get new clothes sent up when they need clean ones. All the dirty ones are disposed of in the supply vessels which burn up in the atmosphere.

Human waste products can be problematic in a small habitat. Though urine can be recycled, without too much trouble, feces is much harder to deal with and in the ISS is again disposed of in the supply vessels.

Atmosphere regulation is hard in an enclosed habitat. In the ISS there is a complex environmental regulation system which filters out many different harmful gases that can build up in an enclosed human system (that includes ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, acetone, hydrogen chloride, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide and many others) and keeps the oxygen levels right. If this goes wrong in the ISS (as has happened several times) you can send replacement components or emergency oxygen from Earth but on Mars you would be in trouble.

Micro-organisms are problematical in an enclosed habitat. This is something the Russians found out with Soyuz. In the ISS many measures are taken to keep the numbers of micro-organisms low, including keeping the atmosphere very dry and filtering them out. Still they have occasional build ups of biofilms. (For an overview of this issue see Microbial Colonization of Space Stations

The ISS is not at all self contained. They can't even wash their clothes, but get new clothes sent up when they need clean ones. All the dirty ones are disposed of in the supply vessels which burn up in the atmosphere.

Human waste products can be problematic in a small habitat. Though urine can be recycled, without too much trouble, excrement is much harder to deal with and in the ISS is again disposed of in the supply vessels.

Atmosphere regulation is hard in an enclosed habitat. In the ISS there is a complex environmental regulation system which filters out many different harmful gases that can build up in an enclosed human system (that includes ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, acetone, hydrogen chloride, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide and many others) and keeps the oxygen levels right. If this goes wrong in the ISS (as has happened several times) you can send replacement components or emergency oxygen from Earth but on Mars you would be in trouble.

Micro-organisms are problematical in an enclosed habitat. This is something the Russians found out with Soyuz. In the ISS many measures are taken to keep the numbers of micro-organisms low, including keeping the atmosphere very dry and filtering them out. Still they have occasional build ups of biofilms. (For an overview of this issue see Microbial Colonization of Space Stations)

All of this is solvable but requires complex machinery to keep it going. There are ideas for self contained habitats using natural methods, such as Biosphere 2, the ESA's Mellisa and the Russian BIOS-3 but these are larger than the first habitats, and again is not 100% proven technology for space yet.

Biosphere 2, first large scale attempt at a self enclosed biosphere type habitat. The experiment was a failure but much was learnt and in future it may be possible to set up totally self contained habitats in space. The technology is not mature yet however.

7. Hard to make self sufficient - need for parts and supplies from Earth

Yes there are lots of resources available on Mars. But they are available in space too, mining the NEOs. Mining on Mars will be hard to do, as hard as in space. You still need to use space suits because of the vacuum conditions. And however much you can make from native Mars materials, at least at present levels of technology, then many components and replacement parts will have to come from Earth.

Opportunity rover in Endurance crater- the longest lived rover on Mars. It has been operating since 2004 and (as of writing this) is still running. All the other rovers have lasted for less than a decade. Though human habitats would be designed for durability, eventually they also would fail.

None of our rovers on Mars have lasted for very long, except for Opportunity which has been active since 2004 (it's sister rover Spirit stopped working in 2010).

Human habitats presumably would be rated to last longer than that. Yet, the habitats would be extremely complex technologically. Things would go wrong eventually, and you would need parts from Earth.

Also, the modules for the ISS reach the end of their design life after a few decades and most of the station will probably de-orbited in the 2020s, with the modules degraded beyond reasonable possibility of repair - and the same would be true on Mars.

It seems unlikely that you could really supply all the food by plants grown on Mars, and if you were able to do that, yet sometimes crop failures would surely occur, especially early on. Again this needs food to be supplied from Earth.

Medicine would be needed too, and other supplies that need high levels of technology.

Spacesuits are also complex mechanisms that could fail, and that the colony would be surely unable to make, and only able to do some repairs for them.

Its best to think of spacesuits as more like mini spaceships than aqualungs. A typical NASA spacesuit would cost about $2 million dollars to build from scratch (not including design costs). It requires about 5,000 hours of work and would take someone who had all the necessary skills about two and a half years to build, given supply of all the parts and materials needed. See Space suit evolution (NASA).

Especially, you are totally reliant on the environment regulation of the air composition and temperature of the habitat, and again if this machinery breaks down and can't be repaired, you die.

There is no way a Mars colony could be totally self sufficient in the near future - except with some game changing technology such as nanoscale 3D printing or self replicating nano-technology.

8. Boring landscape to unassisted human eyes

The landscape on Mars may seem quite stunning in some of the photos. But these have been digitally enhanced with the white balance changed, to help geologists to recognize rock types. To human eyes it is a dull reddish gray or brown. The sky is the same colour too. It will be hard to distinguish different colours and everything looks much the same.

You probably wouldn't get much chance to explore it directly for safety reasons and because it takes so long to put on your spacesuit. Mainly you would just see the view from your window whatever that is. You would soon get tired of the dull gray landscape and skies.

9. Accidents

Okay so accidents happen. On Mars they may well be fatal if they result in damage of your spacesuit or habitat.

Also, in a vacuum, you can die just because you have forgotten one step in your checklist while you put on your spacesuit - or because you get interested in what you are doing and forget to allow enough time to get back within your oxygen reserves. Or just get delayed, e.g. a sprained ankle on Mars might well kill you because you then can't get back to your oxygen supply in time to top up.

And if you get caught in a solar storm, that could be deadly again if you are far from the nearest shielded habitat or rover at the time.

In the future we may use robots for exploring most of the time rather than humans for safety reasons even when there are humans close by who could go. Especially for really long duration multiple day EVAs, rovers controlled by telerobotics may become the norm rather than humans. No need to carry food, oxygen or water. Able to just stop anywhere and work on something for days on end or just spend days or weeks on a single experiment out in the open. The people operating them via telerobotics can switch from one to another, as you do with the game civilization, doing all the interesting things, while the robots do the boring stuff.

"Robots do it better" may well be a slogan much in use in future space settlements.

10. Mars is too small to be worth colonizing

Yes I know the surface area of Mars is large, comparable to that of Earth. But there are several other consequences of such a small planet.

Cosmic Radiation - high levels, would need to limit the amount of time you spend on or near the surface without protection from the cosmic radiation - otherwise you have an elevated chance of getting cancer.

Low gravity - so far it's not known whether humans can remain healthy long term in a Mars gravity. Same is true for the Moon but is easier to return sick astronauts from the Moon to Earth, e.g. if it is found that bone loss is as bad in low gravity as in zero g. There have been many biologically surprising results for zero g, and there may be surprises for low g as well.

The human body is complex, and impossible to simulate in detail in a computer model. You can't just draw a straight line from zero g to full g and interpolate to find the effect of low g. For all we know, it could even be worse than zero g or better than full g in its effects on human health.

Issues astronauts encounter in zero g include, bone loss (in zero g is about 1% per month), muscle atrophy (about 5% per week to start with), blood loss (about 22% within a few days, could be a contributing factor for heart atrophy). Many of these clear up on return to Earth; as a rule of thumb it takes one day to recover for every day in orbit. But the evidence so far suggests you might not recover from bone loss completely. You can easily lose 20% of your bone mass in a long duration space flight. Long term you can get serious vision problems too, one third of astronauts returning from space have impaired vision and in one case the impairment was permanent.

We have no way to truly simulate less than 1 g for long time periods on Earth. It might be completely safe for humans but again it might cause long term problems like zero g. As well as effects on adults, it might also be, for instance, that children's bones don't grow in low gravity, or that it is impossible to give birth safely.

UV radiation - has hazardous levels of UV radiation, again have to be careful about exposure.

Atmosphere not recycled through continental drift. This is mainly relevant for long term prospects. On Earth CO₂ which gets captured in the seas eventually recycles to the surface through continental drift and volcanoes. If we were somehow to find a way to introduce an atmosphere to Mars it probably wouldn't last long in geological timescales - unless some alternative cycle can be set up.

Surface area is far less than for space colonies - if you thought the surface of Mars was large, well space habitats potentially have much more space available. See my post Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths. So we shouldn't get too hung up on the large surface area of Mars, as it's not the only place we could colonize.

Okay all of those can be addressed, protection from cosmic radiation, centrifuge sleeping quarters and indeed the whole habitat could be set spinning to increase the gravity felt inside, and UV radiation easy enough to protect against. The area for colonization is comparable to Earth so only seems small in comparison to space colony potential.

But it all contributes to make Mars not quite as enticing as it would seem at first.

Colonizing closer to Earth first

I'll not go into this in any detail here, as it rather strays from the main topic of this post, and I've covered it in Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths. But in short the amounts of resources available to build space colonies just from the Near Earth Objects (NEOs) is surprising. There is easily enough material in NEOs to build habitats with many square kilometers of living area, and with just about all the materials we need to make them.

Longer term, space colonies have more potential for human habitation than planetary surfaces - and that is including the Earth itself. There is enough material in the asteroid belt to build colonies with the land area of a thousand Earths.

Nerius is a likely target for materials for a space colony, as it is one of the larger NEOs to get to, and easier to get to than the Moon. Though only 300 meters across, it has enough material for cosmic radiation shielding for three square kilometers. of space habitats following the design of the Stanford Torus. Mars's small moon Deimos has enough to shield an area more than twice the size of Switzerland (e.g. as lots of Stanford tori). Then, when you get to the asteroid belt, there is enough material there for cosmic radiation shielding for a thousand times the surface area of Earth. This is a different idea from the idea of hollowing out the asteroids which creates much less living space, Nerius could only make a 300 meters diameter habitat if you hollow it out.

In the nearer term the most habitable surface areas of any celestial body in the solar system outside of Earth are probably the poles of the Moon, where there are the "peaks of (almost) eternal light" that get constant year round light. This would give near constant solar power and light for greenhouses except during eclipses. They are also right next to the craters of eternal night which are thought to have deposits of ice and are the coldest places in the inner solar system. So a fascinating place to explore and live, and with just about all the materials you need to build a small near to self sufficient colony.

The peaks of (almost) eternal light might need to be explored scientifically using rovers first to minimize contamination, for instance maybe there are layered deposits of ice preserving a record of the history of the early solar system and the solar winds. That exploration could be done by humans too, however, by telepresence. The moon is far enough away from Earth for telepresence exploration from L1 or L2 to be worth doing.

NASA artwork from the 1970s for the Stanford Torus design

This was something we could build already with 1970s technology and would be far easier to build today. Also, we would have sufficient resources to build this using materials from just one small NEO such as Nereus (perhaps the most accessible of them all, 300 meters across and easier to get to than the Moon in terms of delta v). It has enough material to provide cosmic ray shielding for about 3 square kilometers of habitat living area. There are many other NEOs comparable in size or larger.

One would of course start smaller, but eventually colonies of this size and larger could be constructed, mainly with use of resources available in space within easy access from Earth.

Other colonies could be in the other Lagrange locations, or orbit the Earth or co-orbit the sun with the Earth. Long term, a location close to the Earth makes for faster trade both ways, and permits space tourist visits. Shorter term it also makes for easy assistance and backup in case of emergencies, and astronauts can if necessary be returned to Earth within a day or two.

Also, technical assistance for near Earth colonies can be given by experts on Earth in close to real time without the light speed delays of Mars. In the near term, just because of unavoidable communication delays from Earth during emergencies, I think that explorers who travel as far as Mars would probably have the best chance of success if they are experts who have "written the manual" on the spaceship systems, together with scientific experts able to make fast real time decisions about experiments on the surface.

For more about all this see my Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths.

Solution to all of this for Mars - telepresence

So, I'm not "against mars colonization". Would be great if these problems could be solved and maybe with some future technology they could be. Perhaps self healing spacesuits and spaceships, able to hold in contamination even in a hard landing or accident? Perhaps some successor to the suitport that is self cleaning and lets no air escape at all? Or we might find out things about Mars that lead us to decide that it is okay to introduce Earth micro-organisms to it.

But in the meantime, space colonies would seem to make much more sense than a Mars surface colony. But Mars is such an interesting place to explore especially for scientists. With enhanced vision, the boring landscape would become interesting to look at and explore. And our mechanical rovers on Mars are so slow, experiments take months to complete, and they do in a month what a human could do probably in an hour.

So, what can we do? Well the answer is telepresence. The technology is developing rapidly, both through the games industry, and through various applications such as remote telepresence surgery (surgeons in the USA operating on patients in France for instance), and field geology especially deep wells.

With humans in orbit around Mars, then they could explore the surface with telepresence. You get super human abilities too, as you can build telerobots able to fly (hard for a heavy human to do in the thin Mars atmosphere), or smaller or stronger than humans.

Video of Robert Michelson's entomopter.

On Mars it might be easier for machines to fly with insect type flight with rapidly beating wings, using the bumble bee wings vortex effect for lift. On Mars that can work scaled up to wings a meter across because of the thin atmosphere also assisted by the low gravity. That's the idea of the entomopter. One way you could build telerobots able to fly on Mars.

With several rovers spread out on the surface of Mars you can "hop" from one to the other in virtual reality, set up experiments, set them going to return to them later, or drive around on the surface of Mars in real time. The robots would be semi-autonomous, not just sit around doing nothing, but a bit like the game of civilization, you set them going doing various tasks then pop over to another place on Mars to take over another robot, and so on.

Image from the Telerobotics Symposium held in 2012, one of the recommendations was that telepresence be used to explore Mars during the early orbital missions.

Eventually we might have a sizeable colony in orbit around Mars and a sizeable "colony" of telerobots on the surface which might make materials for export to the orbital colony or indeed to Earth.

Telerobots could do mining, and all the things envisioned for a human surface colony, with almost no risk of contamination, either of Mars, or back to Earth of any micro-organisms on Mars.

As an astronaut, you could explore the surface within your spaceship in a shirt sleeves environment, no need to put on your spacesuit. The orbital spaceship would spin for gravity, probably using a tether system in early versions of the colony. With an onmidirectional platform and telerobots on the surface, you could walk and run over the surface too, as if you were there but with enhanced vision and capabilities.

We could actually grow plants on the surface of Mars too by telepresence, since seeds can be sterilized. There are two types of hydroponics, and sterile hydroponics doesn't use micro-organisms, instead supplies all the nutrients the plants need in the water. Aeroponics is a version of hydroponics especially useful for space missions which uses minimal water as the roots grow in moist air.

We could have greenhouses on the surface, and export the food to orbit using fuel also created on the surface of Mars.

"Little Prince" rover (concept by Martin Miklica) to support a single plant on Mars. Since seeds can be sterilized (unlike humans or animals), plants on Mars could be grown without any risk of contaminating it with Earth micro-organisms.

Named after the "Little Prince" who looked after a single rose on his asteroid in the fictional book by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

It's possible that plants may be the first living Earth colonists of another planet.

Video of the Little Prince rover

Later on, if the decision is made to send humans to the surface, you already have the telerobots there and whatever technology is associated with them, for the humans to use for their habitats.

See also

Encouraged by the interest in this article, I've written many more articles since this one, on related topics. See for instance:

Then, on same subject as this article but a more leisurely treatment:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten Reasons NOT To Live On Mars - Great Place To Explore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mars is a fascinating planet, the most like Earth of all the planets in the solar system, and may help us to understand much about the origins of life on Earth. Undoubtedly, it's a wonderful place to explore, especially with augmented reality vision.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the things that would come into question concerning the feasibility of living on Mars. The things it discusses includes permanent settlement, use of Mars resources, solar panels, the existing technology to get there, and which astronauts would be chosen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mission Feasibility - Mission - Mars One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Mars One crews consist of people that want to settle on Mars. Absence of a return mission reduces the mission infrastructure radically. No return vehicle, return propellant or the systems to produce the propellant locally are required. Permanent settlement also reduces the required technology development; vehicles that can take off from Mars and return to Earth are currently unavailable and untested.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the design for the type of living space astronauts would use while staying for 288 days. These structures are based on igloos to withstand the frigid temperatures of the Martian North Pole. The article states that North Pole of Mars is the best spot likely for a colony because of the abundance of sunlight, ice and natural resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This artist's illustration depicts a novel Mars colony base concept by researchers at Switzerland's Federal Polytechnic School in Lausanne, which would use an igloo-like habitat near the Martian north pole as a home for astronauts.

Credit: EPFL

Mars explorers could live in an igloo-like structure near the Red Planet's frigid north pole, to take advantage of the seasonally abundant solar energy in that region, a new study suggests.

The Martian poles are famous among scientists for their layered deposits of ice and dust, as well as for containing perchlorate. Perchlorate is commonly used as a rocket fuel here on Earth, and some microbes here actually tap the stuff for energy.

According to the new Mars-outpost concept - which was outlined by researchers at Switzerland's Federal Polytechnic School in Lausanne (known by its French acronym EPFL) - the base would initially host humans on the surface for a 288-day stretch: During that time, the north pole is bathed in sunlight continuously. [ How Will a Human Mars Base Work? NASA's Vision in Images]

The outpost would be covered by a dome made of polyethylene fiber shrouded in a 10-foot-thick (3 meters) layer of ice - sort of like an igloo.

Underneath the dome would be a central core, which would include the living space, and three capsules that would serve as airlocks between that space and the exterior. Since the dome would overlie the core and capsules, it would protect Mars explorers against radiation and micrometeorite strikes, and keep internal atmospheric pressure constant as well.

"The poles may pose more challenges in the beginning, but they are the best location for the long term since they harbor natural resources that we may be able to use," study lead author Anne-Marlene Rüede, a student minoring in space technology at EPFL's space engineering center, said in a statement from EFPL.

"We wanted to develop a strategy based on technologies that have been selected accordingly and outline a test scenario so that, 20 years from now, astronauts will be able to carry out this kind of space mission," she added.

The explorers would live off the land for at least nine months at a time, harvesting water, oxygen and nitrogen from the nearby ice. The carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere, as well as the silicon, iron, aluminum and sulfur in the soil, could be used to manufacture bricks, glass, plastic and fuels (such as hydrogen or methanol), the researchers said.

Here's how the mission planning would go. First, robots would fly alone to the Martian north polar region to make a small living space for the crew, and to scout for locally available natural resources.

The crew would come next. During the second mission, astronauts would use a sort of crane system that would orbit around Mars and move equipment from spacecraft down onto the planet's surface.

"The crane vehicle could be reused several times and would be powered by fuel produced on Mars. It would reduce the payload that space shuttles would have to carry up to the research base," study co-author Claudio Leonardi, a scientist at EPFL, said in the same statement. "The vehicle's docking system would be similar to that used on the International Space Station: once a shuttle was docked, the vehicle would unload the cargo and crew and set them down on Mars."

The researchers envision the base initially supporting a crew of six explorers. But putting the idea into effect could potentially lead to even bigger things down the road, study team members said.

"We would need to conduct an initial mission to try everything out for the first time," Rüede said. "And the better that initial mission is thought out, the faster we will be able to get things going and move on to colonization."

The study has been accepted for publication in the journal Acta Astronautica. It was also presented last week at the International Tourism Talks of the Future conference in Vixouze, France.

Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook or Google+. Originally published on Space.com .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars Explorers Could Live in 'Igloo' Near Red Planet's North Pole

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mars explorers could live in an igloo-like structure near the Red Planet's frigid north pole, to take advantage of the seasonally abundant solar energy in that region, a new study suggests. The Martian poles are famous among scientists for their layered deposits of ice and dust, as well as for containing perchlorate.

# data[].attributes.body
This article points out that during a meeting organized by Elon Musk's SpaceX with a group of scientists, some scientists ask whether we should go to Mars and gives three reasons why humans sould leave the red plane alone, including humans will contaminate Mars, sendiing robots to Mars first are better than humans, and we should fix the Earth first.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plans are being made to colonise Mars. Zahaan Bharmal unpicks the arguments against

# data[].attributes.headline
Scout Lindberg                      One feasibility issue plaguing the mars mission is a lack of oxygen. While humans can recycle some from greenhouses, external oxygen is still vital for human life and rocket fuel production. This article suggests that low-temperature plasma decomposition could create oxygen from the CO2 rich atmosphere and relieve the need for supplies of oxygen and melting ice caps.

# data[].attributes.subject
Scout Lindberg                      One feasibility issue plaguing the mars mission is a lack of oxygen. While humans can recycle some from greenhouses, external oxygen is still vital for human life and rocket fuel production. This article suggests that low-temperature plasma decomposition could create oxygen from the CO2 rich atmosphere and relieve the need for supplies of oxygen and melting ice caps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elon Musk's vision of establishing a human settlement on Mars just became a lot more feasible, after a study conducted by a team of Portuguese-French scientists concluded that plasma technology could help foster the production of oxygen on the Red Planet's atmosphere.

The recent study, published in the Plasma Sources Science and Technology journal, asserts that the prevalence of carbon dioxide in Mars' atmosphere is actually ideal for the creation of oxygen. According to University of Lisbon researcher Vasco Guerra, the carbon dioxide-rich state of the planet's atmosphere provides the perfect conditions for creating oxygen through decomposition.

In a statement to Astrowatch.net, Guerra noted that the use of low-temperature plasma decomposition would benefit both Mars' inhabitants and those traveling to and from the planet.

"Our main conclusion is precisely that Mars has nearly ideal conditions for creating oxygen from carbon dioxide by non-thermal plasmas. Carbon dioxide decomposition can provide oxygen for breathing and contribute to the production of fuels to be used on the return trip to Earth," Guerra said, according to Astrowatch.net.
RELATED: Here's what will happen to Elon Musk's Mars-bound Tesla Roadster
As noted in the findings of the researchers, the production of oxygen on the Red Planet would be done in-situ, which is ideal considering that Mars' atmosphere is about 95.9 percent carbon dioxide. This CO2 which could then be converted into oxygen and carbon monoxide, the latter of which will be utilized in the production of propellant for rocket vehicles. The low general temperature in the Red Planet, which is -82 degrees Fahrenheit on average, is also perfect for the decomposition of carbon dioxide.

"The pressure and temperature ranges in the about 96 percent carbon dioxide Martian atmosphere favor the vibrational excitation and subsequent up-pumping of the asymmetric stretching mode, which is believed to be a key factor for an efficient plasma dissociation, at the expense of the excitation of the other modes."

It starts with your smartphone, but that's just the beginning of its potential.

Plasma technologies for CO2 reforming currently utilize solid oxide electrolyzer cells (SOEC). Considering the conditions on the Red Planet, however, the researchers mentioned in their conclusion that a non-equilibrium plasma process should be far more power-efficient and effective in producing oxygen than conventional SOEC. Guerra, however, noted that despite the promising results of his team's study, more research is needed in order to implement technology that can be used in future interplanetary missions.

"Assuming we have the means to keep developing the technology, a time frame of about five years to have it ready seems realistic. Then we would need to add the time to prepare an actual mission," Guerra said.

As we mentioned in a previous report, CEO Elon Musk stated that SpaceX is attempting to begin the construction of the first Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), a pivotal spacecraft in the private space firm's Mars initiative, sometime this year. SpaceX is also aiming to send two cargo spaceships on a Mars-bound mission by 2022.

bSolo explained in 15 seconds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New plasma technology could help SpaceX colonize Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elon Musk's vision of establishing a human settlement on Mars just became a lot more feasible, after a study conducted by a team of Portuguese-French scientists concluded that plasma technology could help foster the production of oxygen on the Red Planet's atmosphere. The recent study, published in the Plasma Sources Science and Technology journal, asserts ...

# data[].attributes.body
Mars has a lot of evidence of water just under its surface. This means that it could have, at one time, been covered with oceans. This also means that Mars would have been a breeding group for life. With the presence of water still there, we have a vital resource for humans that already exists on the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists Found a Lake on Mars. Could That Mean Life?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers are reporting the existence of a 12.5-mile-wide liquid water lake just beneath a layer of ice at Mars's south pole.

# data[].attributes.body
This article outlines how at this point, the technology is not yet available to live on Mars. It states that there are rockets that can get people there, but there are so many potential issues that could arise during the flight and after the arrival. Along with that, there is not the technology of terraforming to make food yet, but the article expresses that it will be possible in the near future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the late 1960s, the United States proved to the world that it was possible to land humans on the Moon. Today, decades after that first mission, people are again looking to travel to another world, but it's not just to the Moon. Now, they want to walk on Mars. Innovations in spacecraft, materials, and designs will be needed to accomplish such a mission, and those challenges are being met by new generations of engineers and scientists. Visiting and colonizing those worlds will require complex spacecraft not just to get people there, but to safeguard them once they arrive.

Today's rockets are far more powerful, far more efficient and far more reliable than those used on the Apollo missions. The electronics that control the spacecraft and that help keep the astronauts alive are changing all the time, and some of it gets used every day, in cellphones that would put the Apollo electronics to shame. Today, every aspect of manned space flight has become substantially more evolved. So why, then, have humans not been to Mars YET?

Getting to Mars is Difficult

The root of the answer is that the scale of what a trip to Mars is incredibly big and complex. The challenges are formidable. For example, nearly two-thirds of Mars missions have met with some failure or mishap. And those are just the robotic ones! It gets more crucial when people start to talk about sending people to the Red Planet!

Think about how far they will have to travel. Mars is about 150 times farther away from Earth than the Moon. That may not sound like a lot, but think about what that means in terms of added fuel. More fuel means more weight. More weight means bigger capsules and bigger rockets. Those challenges alone put a trip to Mars on a different scale from simply "hopping" to the Moon (which takes a few days at the most).

However, those are the only challenges. NASA has spacecraft designs (like Orion and Nautilus) that would be capable of making the trip. Other agencies and companies have plans to go to Mars, such as SpaceX and the Chinese government, but even they aren't quite ready yet to make the leap. However, it's quite likely that some form of a mission will fly, perhaps within a decade at the very earliest.

However, there's another challenge: time. Since Mars is so far away, and orbits the Sun at a different rate than Earth, NASA (or anybody sending people to Mars) must time launches to the Red Planet very precisely. Mission planners have to wait until the best "window of opportunity" when the planets are in the correct orbital alignment. That's true for the trip there as well as the trip home. The window for a successful launch opens up only every couple of years, so timing is crucial. Also, it takes time to get to Mars safely; months or possibly as much as a year for the one-way trip.

While it may be possible to cut the travel time down to a month or two using advanced propulsion technology currently under development, once on the surface of the Red Planet the astronauts will need to wait until Earth and Mars are correctly aligned again before returning. How long will that take? A year and a half, at least.

Dealing With the Issue of Time

The lengthy timescale for travel to and from Mars causes problems in other areas as well. How do the travelers get enough oxygen? What about water? And, of course, food? And how do they get around the fact that they are traveling through space, where the Sun's energetic solar wind is sending harmful radiation around the spacecraft? And, there are also the micrometeorites, the debris of space, that threaten to puncture the spacecraft or spacesuit of an astronaut.

The solutions to these problems are trickier to accomplish. But they will be solved, which will make a trip to Mars doable. Protecting the astronauts while in space means building the spacecraft out of robust materials and shielding it from the Sun's harmful rays.

The problems of food and air will have to be solved through creative means. Growing plants that produce both food and oxygen is a good start. However, this means that should the plants die, things will go horribly wrong. That is all assuming you have enough room to grow the volume of planets needed for such an adventure.

Astronauts could take food, water, and oxygen along, but enough supplies for the entire trip will add weight and size to the spacecraft. One possible solution might be to send materials to be used ON Mars ahead, on an uncrewed rocket to land on Mars and be waiting when the humans get there. That's a very doable solution that several mission planners are considering.

NASA is confident that it can overcome these problems, but we are not quite there yet. SpaceX says it's getting ready. The plans from other countries are less knowable, but they are serious about Mars, as well. Still, the plans are still very much theoretical. Over the coming two decades mission planners hope to close the gap between theory and reality. Maybe then, humanity can actually send astronauts to Mars on long-term missions of exploration and eventual colonization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Barriers to Human Exploration of Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the late 1960s, the United States proved to the world that it was possible to land humans on the Moon. Today, decades after that first mission, people are again looking to travel to another world, but it's not just to the Moon. Now, they want to walk on Mars.

# data[].attributes.body
Getting to Mars will be very hard on the human body, and some think that will be something that can stop us from getting to Mars anytime soon. This article suggests that one possible way that humans can get there more safely is to put the astronauts in a coma to help reduce the likelihood of something bad happening during the long journey. The article also talks about high radiation levels on the surface that could make colonization difficult.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"There are a lot of challenges that are preventing us from even getting there in a healthy state," said Bradford in a keynote speech at the event. As a human-space-exploration expert, he's been working on a way to mitigate many of those problems by putting astronauts in a "torpor state" of prolonged hypothermia. It not only reduces the human problems but helps with technical and engineering challenges, too.

On the medical side, it addresses the so-called psycho-social challenges (you can't get depressed if you're asleep), reduces intra-cranial pressure, opens up new approaches like electrostimulation to reduce muscle atrophy and bone loss, and even helps minimize radiation exposure.

From a technical standpoint, torpor makes NASA and SpaceX's travel plans easier. It significantly cuts food requirements and reduces the required habitable volume and power levels. "These are all things that drive up the mass of the system," said Bradford. "The propulsive energy required is an exponential function (of mass), so anytime we can reduce that, it has significant benefits."

The word "torpor" sounds scary. It kind of is. Our normal body temperature is about 37 Celsius (98.6 Fahrenheit), but humans in torpor have a body temperature of 32-34 Celsius, the same as for medical therapeutic hypothermia. That treatment has been used to help heart attack victims and was used to cool F1 champion Michael Schumacher's brain to reduce swelling. It requires careful monitoring, of course.

Compared to medical hypothermia that usually only lasts a few days, astronauts would go into a torpor state for two weeks, wake up for a few days, then repeat the process until arriving on Mars. That poses multiple dangers. You'd need risky long-term sedation, nutrition and hydration, waste disposal and fine-tuned climate control, to name a few technologies.

To deal with those things, Spaceworks and NASA are looking at medical, physical and pharmaceutical approaches. That includes drugs that make your body think a 32-34 degree C temperature is "normal" and a PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) tube inserted directly into your stomach to feed you. The latter would make the transition from a torpor to awake state much easier.

Other techniques would include whole body electrical stimulation to reduce muscle atrophy, an oxygen hood for fine control of oxygen and CO2 levels, sensors to monitor your vitals, a temperature-controlled environment, and yep, a waste-collection system. As pictured above, that looks pretty much like the science-fiction "suspended animation" pods you've seen in movies.

The end result of this would (hopefully) be healthy, happy astronauts, and smaller, more-efficient spaceships. NASA's Mars transporter could be reduced in size by nearly half, from 45.5 to 25.5 tons, with half the necessary habitable volume and a quarter of the power. That'd make it more feasible to get the thousands of people necessary for a viable colony onto Mars.

"I do believe that this is a key to extended space flight to Mars and other destinations," says Bradford. "You're not going to do it without some breakthrough, game-changing technology [like torpor]."

You'll be happy to arrive on Mars after all that, but your problems are far from over. "Some of the biggest challenges are the low-pressure environment, which requires a bulky, pressurized space suit, and the cold temperatures at night," says NASA/JPL planetary geology researcher Laura Kerber. For that, NASA scientists are working on lighter spacesuits that could use less pressurization through mechanical compression on the body.

Radiation is also a big problem because Mars doesn't have a protective magnetic field like Earth does. The gravity is only a third of that here, and scientists aren't exactly sure what effect that will have on settlers. Researchers also need to know more about Martian dust to figure out how safe it is to breathe in or get on your skin.

On top of the environmental challenges, there are the geographical ones. Mars has nearly the same dry land mass as Earth, but the topology is pretty gnarly.

"Valles Marineris canyon stretches the equivalent distance of the entire United States," Kerber says. "So if you go along in your rover, you might say, 'Wow, this is three times deeper than the Grand Canyon, maybe we can go around.' You're not going to go around." Other problems include landslides, impact craters (which happen way more often than on Earth), carbon-dioxide geysers, planet-encircling dust storms and more.

Another issue is resources. "The tyranny of Mars is that most of the water is located where it's not at all nice to live," says Kerber. "There's lots of water at the poles where it's cold, but if you go near the equator, where its a lot warmer and where it's nicer to get into orbit, you have a lot less water." And if astronauts do find a water or methane supply, they'll have to weigh the benefits of using it for drinking water versus breaking it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel.

(On the plus side, Kerber jokes, you'll instantly be a third your Earth weight, have more time to get things done in each 24-hour, 40-minute Martian day, and be younger, thanks to a year that's nearly double the length of Earth's.)

NASA scientists have already used the Curiosity rover to study radiation, the atmosphere and geology of the red planet, but there's still a lot we don't know. Future missions will need to measure the same parameters in different locations and gather a lot more information. Kerber would like to see an orbiting observer with more resolution so that scientists can find valuable minerals needed to support life, for instance.

Where is the ideal place to live, according to Kerber? She has her eye on a spot near the equator, with fine-grained materials that you could use to build roads and cliffs that could be hollowed out to build cave-type dwellings.

"On Mars, you're going to be living right at the edge of technology, like the most-advanced technology possible, but you're also going to be living a really primitive existence," she said. "I imagine us going back to our cave-dwelling days. If you're in a cave, you're protected from radiation and temperature swings. But if you're on the side of a cliff, at least you're not totally underground, so you can have nice windows and a view."

In other words, you might be in kind of a hypothermic coma on the way to Mars, and then living in a cave, scratching out an existence once you arrive. Who in the hell would want to do that? Kerber says it's definitely not the kind of person who wants to be younger and lighter, as she had joked earlier.

Instead, she refers to an early 1900s classified ad from polar explorer Ernest Shackleton, which applies equally to both sexes. "Men wanted for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting to and living on Mars will be hell on your body

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"There are a lot of challenges that are preventing us from even getting there in a healthy state," said Bradford in a keynote speech at the event. As a human-space-exploration expert, he's been working on a way to mitigate many of those problems by putting astronauts in a "torpor state" of prolonged hypothermia.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discuses how the replica of the Mars Mission in Utah placed an electrical heater a little too close to the wood cabinets in the greenhouse, known as the GreenHab. Soon after a fire started in the GreenHab. It was eventually contained, but it shows that we are not technologically and that we haven't created the most space prepared equipment for this mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At a simulated Mars research station in the Utah desert, a recent fire caused extensive damage to a central greenhouse. No one in the four-member crew was injured, but the incident is a sobering reminder of what could go wrong during a mission to Mars.

The idea of a manned mission to Mars is moving closer to feasability, but there are a lot of details to work out first. What are the ethical implications of such a mission? Should a Mars crew be all female? What's the best way to set up a station on Mars that can support human life? To answer these questions and many more, groups like the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), which is owned and operated by the Mars Society, explore the logistics of creating a safe and self-sustaining environment for humans on both a spacecraft and Mars itself.

On Dec. 29, the first day of a new mission, the MDRS crew members noticed an unusual power surge and then saw smoke coming from the greenhouse, nicknamed the GreenHab. An electrical heater placed too close to some wooden shelves had started a fire, which in turn was causing the power surge as it compromised outlets in the greenhouse. As Space.com reports, the crew attempted to extinguish the fire while it was still relatively small, but it grew, with flames reaching about 10 feet into the air.

After about a half-hour, the crew was able to contain the situation by cutting power to the GreenHab, and using fire extinguishers and water to control the flames. MDRS is 20 to 30 minutes away from the nearest town-Hanksville, Utah-so emergency response vehicles couldn't reach the site immediately. The Wayne County sheriff did respond later that day, though, and a few days after a fire marshal ruled the incident an accident.

"The fire did make me think about how to handle such a situation on Mars," said Nick Orenstein, the crew commander at the time of the fire. The GreenHab will eventually be rebuilt with nonwood materials, and Orenstein emphasized the importance of material choice in mission structures. "Training and protective equipment is also important so that in an emergency the crew can react quickly and with confidence. ... On real Mars, the long minutes it takes to put on a spacesuit may be the time it takes for the fire to grow out of control."

Orenstein noted that Wednesday was NASA's Day of Remembrance for individuals who have died while pursuing space exploration. "I honor their pioneering dedication," he said. And though the fire was a significant, and scary, setback, he added, "I'm still practicing for real Mars, and ready to go."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
mars desert research station greenhouse fire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Replica Mars Mission in Utah Desert Disrupted by Fire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At a simulated Mars research station in the Utah desert, a recent fire caused extensive damage to a central greenhouse. No one in the four-member crew was injured, but the incident is a sobering reminder of what could go wrong during a mission to Mars.

# data[].attributes.body
This articles mainly describes the different issues surrounding the colonization of Mars. It concludes that the two main obstacles are money and time, and some believe Musk's timeline borders on fantasy. Some experts also pointed out that Musk failed to provide an outline for technologies and procedures for surviving on the surface of Mars, such as food sources, an economic system, and energy supplies. However, many experts agree that Musk has successfully inspired many people regarding space exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk outlined plans to get hundreds of people to Mars. But are those plans really feasible?

This simulated image provides a look inside the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System for sending humans to Mars.

Credit: SpaceX

Musk, who is founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, outlined a plan to build spacecraft that could each transport on the order of 100 people to the Red Planet. The plan would also include a giant new SpaceX rocket, spacecraft and support systems to help get those people to Mars (or destinations beyond). The even-longer-term goal that tops off Musk's vision is for humans alter Mars' atmosphere and environment to make the planet hospitable to life.

The plan is ambitious in nearly every way, from the technology Musk presented to the time line on which he hopes to accomplish these goals, not to mention the funding that will be required. Even so, the experts we talked to said it doesn't seem impossible, or even unachievable.[ Images: SpaceX's Interplanetary Transport for Mars Colonization]

"There's no technical obstacle to the plan being executable," space policy expert John Logsdon told Space.com. "SpaceX has good engineers. They don't have to really invent much."

Right now, SpaceX is flying nonhuman payloads for NASA and other customers, using the company's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule (both built entirely in house). SpaceX is scheduled to start flying astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA as early as 2017. The company is also working on a larger rocket, called the Falcon Heavy, and representatives for SpaceX have said they would like to use the rocket to send one of the company's Dragon spacecraft to Mars as early as 2018.

The Falcon 9 has a reusable first-stage booster, which, instead of falling into the ocean and being scrapped after a launch, uses a set of thrusters to reorient itself, and three of its engines to lower itself down onto a landing pad. SpaceX has demonstrated a series of successful booster landings, although the company has not yet reused any of those landed boosters. That landing technology would likely be used to lower spacecraft onto the surface of Mars.

A simulated view of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System traveling to Mars, using solar panels to gather energy.

Credit: SpaceX

Logsdon said he thinks the main obstacles to SpaceX's Mars plans are money and time.

"The plan he is proposing on the timescale he is proposing seem to me to on the edge of fantasy," Logsdon said. He noted that Musk is known for setting ambitious goals on tight time lines, saying, "That's just Elon. That's his style." [ SpaceX's Mars Colony Plan: By the Numbers]

In addition, Logsdon said that while Musk's plan seemed to explain how humans would get to Mars, there was a significant gap in planning as to how those spacefarers would establish a colony on the Red Planet. Technologies and procedures for surviving on the surface of Mars are, at best, still in the early planning stages. Supporting such a huge influx of people will require food sources, an economic system and energy supplies, which Musk did not explain, Logsdon said.

"He got a little hand-wavy there," Logsdon said.

Because of the huge amount of funding a plan like this will require, SpaceX can't do it alone, Logsdon said. They'll need significant sources of funding, and NASA will likely be one of those sources, he said. As a result, it's very possible that NASA's plans to send humans to Mars will converge with SpaceX's plans, Logsdon added.

Some people are already breaking down the technical specifics of Musk's plan. Those experts include Robert Zubrin, leader of the space advocacy organization the Mars Society.

"In his talk today, Musk presented a number of interesting and very useful ideas," Zubrin wrote on the society's website. "I don't think they are practical in the form he presented them, but with a little modification, they could be made practical and very powerful."

Ahead of Musk's talk on Tuesday, SpaceX representatives announced that the company is working on a rocket engine that would run on methane/oxygen propellant, which the company determined was a more readily available fuel on Mars.

"He's right on the mark about using methane/oxygen propellant, which can be made on Mars, about making the spacecraft reusable and refillable on orbit," Zubrin wrote. However, Zubrin criticized Musk's plan to send one large propulsion system all the way to Mars, instead suggesting a system that would send the spacecraft toward Mars, but remain in orbit around the Earth.

"Musk's mega-Mars plans are welcome news," Leonard David, author of "Mars: Our Future on the Red Planet" (National Geographic, Oct. 2016) and a longtime Space.com contributor, said in an email. "But it is clear that there's far more needed in terms of technological and financial detail before climbing onboard his dream machinery."

"There are a number of 'DUD' (doable under duress) factors that must be dealt with before a true settlement on Mars becomes realistic," David said. Examples of DUD factors are "the types of machinery and power levels needed to run equipment for transforming the abundant resources on Mars into usable, life-supporting and sustaining supplies," he said.

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, outlined the company's plans to colonize Mars, speaking at the International Astronautical Congress meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, on Sept. 27, 2016. Image taken from a SpaceX webcast of the event.

The experts we talked to also agreed that Musk has certainly managed to inspire many people, both in the industry and in the general public, about space exploration. Logsdon said the atmosphere in the room during Musk's talk was "like a rock concert."

"His extraordinary vision and passion is tugging at the adventuresome spirit of humankind, at least those who hunger to be part of a plan that assures our species becomes multiplanetary," David said. He later added that "Musk has served notice that building the bridge between the third and fourth planets in our solar system is an attainable and realizable goal."

Chris Carberry, executive director and co-founder of Explore Mars (a nonprofit created to advance the goal of sending humans to Mars within the next two decades), told David via email that "this announcement is likely to grow enthusiasm for humans on Mars tremendously.

"I think it is important, however, for SpaceX to articulate in more detail - over the next few months - their funding mechanism and how they will overcome the many technical and physiological challenges," Carberry said.

Follow Calla Cofield @callacofield. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feasible or Fantasy? SpaceX's Mars Plan Draws Expert Reactions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk outlined plans to get hundreds of people to Mars. But are those plans really feasible? Musk, who is founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, outlined a plan to build spacecraft that could each transport on the order of 100 people to the Red Planet.

# data[].attributes.body
This short article describes a university study in which different types of produce were grown in simulated Martian soil. This study was inspired by the fact that we can't afford to export food to Mars colonies; we would need to sustainably grow our own on the planet. The students focused on nutrient rich and economical crops, and found that leafy greens like lettuce and kale flourished, while potato growth was stunted due to the density of the soil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA and private entrepreneurs are pushing to land people on Mars within the next generation. To survive on Mars, colonists will need a lot of gear, not least of which is food. Since lugging food adds a lot of weight to spacecraft - and packaged food only retains its nutrients for so long, anyway - any would-be Martians will need to grow food on site in order to survive.

But conditions on the Red Planet are different than on Earth. The surface receives less than half the amount of sunlight that Earth does, and dust in the atmosphere can attenuate it even more. Due to the absence of an ozone layer, more ultraviolet radiation reaches the ground. As to the Martian surface itself, the dirt (technically "regolith") is more iron-rich, particularly in iron oxides.

To see how terrestrial plants might fare in Martian soil, students at Villanova University last semester conducted the Red Thumbs Mars Garden Project. They obtained simulated Martian soil, made from volcanic basalts similar to those on Mars, and mixed it with other compounds to make it about 90% similar to Martian regolith.

The students focused on nutritious plants, including lettuce, kale, garlic, and potatoes, as well as hops (the business students were looking for inventive ways to make Martian greenhouse products marketable, professor Edward Guinan quipped during his talk January 12th at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, D.C.). They then planted the seedlings in different concentrations of Martian soil in a campus greenhouse rigged for light levels on the Red Planet and let things unfold.

Despite hiccups in the pilot study (lack of greenhouse temperature control, students forgetting to water plants), several of the experimental foodstuffs grew fine in the Martian simulated dirt. Mixed greens such as lettuce and kale did well, but potatoes - the mainstay of protagonist Mark Watney in The Martian - did not. The clay-like Martian simulant was so thick that it crushed the growing taters, giving them no room to expand.

Overall, plants did much better when the students added filler such as coffee grounds to the Martian simulant, Guinan says. The filler fluffed the dirt up enough that water could percolate through and reach the roots.

One major difference between the Villanova project and real Martian soil is perchlorate (CClO ₄). Perchlorates abound in the uppermost layer of Martian regolith, potentially lowering the freezing temperature of water enough to explain some fleeting signs of liquid water activity on Mars.

But perchlorate is toxic to humans, causing thyroid problems and even death. Humans on the Red Planet might breathe it in from dust that infiltrated habitats, and growing food with it would be dangerous. "Matt Damon would have died," Guinan said, referring to the Hollywood version of the novel. "It was never mentioned in the movie, you know - you don't want to talk about things like that."

Farmers on Mars will need to remove any perchlorate from the Martian soil before using it. One way is to rinse the soil, since perchlorate dissolves in water. Another, more enticing way is to use perchlorate-eating bacteria, which produce oxygen as a metabolic byproduct. That might protect the colonists from serious health problems while also bolstering their breathable air supply.

For those interested in doing similar projects with their students, Guinan recommends lettuce. "It grows fast, and you can eat it," he says. "I ate the lettuce. I'm still here."

You can watch a video about the project: "The Red Thumbs: Mars Garden Project". The class obtained their dirt from The Martian Garden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Some Plants Grow Well in Martian Soil - Sky & Telescope

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA and private entrepreneurs are pushing to land people on Mars within the next generation. To survive on Mars, colonists will need a lot of gear, not least of which is food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tesla owner and founder Elon Musk continues to wow the world with his ideas. Although many are eagerly waiting for Tesla's line of new electric cars to roll out, they should not forget that Musk is thinking beyond traveling on the road. After the SpaceX's test launch late last year, Musk is hoping to follow up with another stellar venture that even experts dub as 'science fiction.'

At around the same time as SpaceX's test run to the outer space, people spotted a 20,000-square-foot white tent situated at the Port of Los Angeles. The tent was initially believed to be a storage tent but it has been revealed after a few months that Musk and his team of engineers were, in fact, building the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR).

According to Business Insider , an unmanned mission to Mars will be conducted in 2022 as a test run of the BFR's capabilities. If all goes well, manned missions will begin in 2024. Musk has always been vocal about his goal of colonizing other planets, and the BFR is one of his biggest steps towards that.

The BFR will weigh 9 million pounds when full on fuel and it will lift up 150 tons of cargo as well. The ship will be able to carry months and possible years' worth of supplies for passengers that could be as many as 100. True to Musk's sustainable practices, the BFR will be a reusable system as well.

Teal Group Senior Space Analyst Marco Cáceres says that Musk's plans to colonize another planet for humans to live in is both crazy and sensible. It is sensible in a sense that it would be ideal for us to have another planet to live on in case something bad happens to Earth.

University of California's Aerospace Engineer Steve Nutt says that SpaceX's plans are more ambitious than trips to the moon. He adds, " It just sounds like science fiction. "

BFR's first passenger reveal

SpaceX has selected the first passenger of the BFR whose identity is set to be revealed at an event at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne Los Angeles on Sept. 17. He will be using the spacecraft to fly around the moon.

SpaceX is yet to reveal when the rest of the passengers will be revealed or exactly how many individuals they are looking for to join the initial mission to the moon and back.

The company announced last year that they were planning to fly passengers to the moon sometime in 2018 . However, it seems like those plans have been delayed.

SpaceX's upcoming venture is something that will tout most of the things that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has done. If everything is a success for Musk and his team, humanity will be taking another giant step but this time, not only on the moon but on Mars as well.

Anthony Donaghue is a science and technology buff. He is currently staying in Tokyo, keeping abreast of the latest tech developments in various sectors. On that end, he's also knowledgeable about startups, as it is closely intertwined with tech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts weigh in on SpaceX's plans to colonize Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tesla owner and founder Elon Musk continues to wow the world with his ideas. Although many are eagerly waiting for Tesla's line of new electric cars to roll out, they should not forget that Musk is thinking beyond traveling on the road.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the plans of SpaceX's Mars and Moon travels are briefly detailed, and different scientists give their opinion on the entire situation. The general consensus is somewhere between sensible and crazy.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the details of SpaceX's eventual travels to Mars and the Moon are briefly described, along with the opinions of some experts in the field. The general consensus is somewhere between sensible and crazy. Also detailed is the fact that SpaceX's first passenger has been chosen and has had their identity set to be released in the near future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tesla owner and founder Elon Musk continues to wow the world with his ideas. Although many are eagerly waiting for Tesla's line of new electric cars to roll out, they should not forget that Musk is thinking beyond traveling on the road. After the SpaceX's test launch late last year, Musk is hoping to follow up with another stellar venture that even experts dub as 'science fiction.'

At around the same time as SpaceX's test run to the outer space, people spotted a 20,000-square-foot white tent situated at the Port of Los Angeles. The tent was initially believed to be a storage tent but it has been revealed after a few months that Musk and his team of engineers were, in fact, building the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR).

According to Business Insider , an unmanned mission to Mars will be conducted in 2022 as a test run of the BFR's capabilities. If all goes well, manned missions will begin in 2024. Musk has always been vocal about his goal of colonizing other planets, and the BFR is one of his biggest steps towards that.

The BFR will weigh 9 million pounds when full on fuel and it will lift up 150 tons of cargo as well. The ship will be able to carry months and possible years' worth of supplies for passengers that could be as many as 100. True to Musk's sustainable practices, the BFR will be a reusable system as well.

Teal Group Senior Space Analyst Marco Cáceres says that Musk's plans to colonize another planet for humans to live in is both crazy and sensible. It is sensible in a sense that it would be ideal for us to have another planet to live on in case something bad happens to Earth.

University of California's Aerospace Engineer Steve Nutt says that SpaceX's plans are more ambitious than trips to the moon. He adds, " It just sounds like science fiction. "

BFR's first passenger reveal

SpaceX has selected the first passenger of the BFR whose identity is set to be revealed at an event at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne Los Angeles on Sept. 17. He will be using the spacecraft to fly around the moon.

SpaceX is yet to reveal when the rest of the passengers will be revealed or exactly how many individuals they are looking for to join the initial mission to the moon and back.

The company announced last year that they were planning to fly passengers to the moon sometime in 2018 . However, it seems like those plans have been delayed.

SpaceX's upcoming venture is something that will tout most of the things that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has done. If everything is a success for Musk and his team, humanity will be taking another giant step but this time, not only on the moon but on Mars as well.

Anthony Donaghue is a science and technology buff. He is currently staying in Tokyo, keeping abreast of the latest tech developments in various sectors. On that end, he's also knowledgeable about startups, as it is closely intertwined with tech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experts weigh in on SpaceX's plans to colonize Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tesla owner and founder Elon Musk continues to wow the world with his ideas. Although many are eagerly waiting for Tesla's line of new electric cars to roll out, they should not forget that Musk is thinking beyond traveling on the road.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, which happens to mostly be a transcript of a podcast, host Gary Jordan asks NASA scientist and former astronaut Dr. Stan Love questions about some of the biggest hurdles in a journey to the Red Planet. Dr. Love highlights some of the main points from one of his presentations about the distance, life support, energy, infrastructures, communication, propulsion systems, and much more of the challenges facing the long awaited trip to Mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Stan Love, NASA astronaut and all-around smart guy, flew to the International Space Station in 2008 and has worked on a number of flight analog programs to understand how to conduct deep-space missions. Love explores the challenges that will need to be tackled to make a mission to Mars successful.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, they talk about how colonizing mars is almost impossible with today's technology. They point out how expensive it would be and how the technology just isn't there yet and they don't know if it will ever be there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the current rate of human resource expenditure, natural resources and habitats will be in shortage in the future (WWF 2016). A potential solution is to explore and colonize Mars as a viable alternative habitat (Hawking 2017). However, the feasibility of Mars colonization must be determined before plans are prepared. This paper addresses the feasibility of a Mars mission through a futuristic lens. It is asked: When, if at all, can we colonize Mars? Extensive research indicates that short-term colonization plans may be infeasible, but long-term plans are slightly more possible.
Colonizing Mars in the Near Future is Impossible
The colonization of Mars in the near future is unrealistic because of technological constraints. According to Jean Salotti and Richard Heidmann, a professor at the at the Bordeaux Polytechnic Institute in France and president of the French Planet Mars Association, respectively, going to Mars poses huge risks (Salotti and Heidmann 2014). Current technologies will not suffice a safe entry, descent, and landing. Before a manned mission is sent to Mars, a "long list of technologies have to be developed" (Salotti and Heidmann 2014). This would cost billions of dollars in research and implementation, funded by either tax dollars or the private sector (Musk 2017). Regardless of the risks, even if a mission is implemented, colonization requires more time. Cliff Neal, a lunar scientist at the University of Notre Dame, argues "[i]f you want to do 'flags and footprints,' go to Mars now. But you'll never go back" (SA 2017). Neal contrasts the mission to the Apollo mission that sent astronauts to the moon. The intention for Mars colonization is not a show of US dominance, but a viable habitat to rely on if Earth declines (SA 2017). Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, a private space travel corporation, claims his company can launch an initial cargo mission to Mars by 2022 (Musk 2017). However, Musk rarely meets his claims, which invalidates his prediction. While there are ambitious plans to reach Mars, doing so in the near future is not feasible.
Colonizing Mars is Feasible in Distant Future
Mars colonization is possible in the distant future due to potential terraforming techniques and the presence of needed organic elements on Mars. Aaron Berliner, scientist at the University of California Berkeley and CP McKay, researcher at the Space Sciences Division of NASA assert that Mars can be slowly terraformed into an Earth like habitat (Berliner and McKay 2017). The terraforming comes in two phases: a relatively quick 100 years that results in Earth like temperatures, followed by a long-term oxygen production phase which will take an estimated 100,000 years (Berliner and McKay 2017). Currently, the lack of a magnetosphere poses an obstacle. Without this field, the atmosphere synthesized will be retained, and radiation will pose a threat to humans and other life (Green et al. 2017). However, NASA researchers have revealed that a miniature magnetosphere can be produced to protect humans and spacecraft while on Mars (Green et al. 2017). To combat the lack of oxygen on Mars, Michael Hecht, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and for NASA, has developed MOXIE, a machine capable of producing oxygen. It can produce about 10 grams of oxygen every hour from preexisting CO2 in the atmosphere (Hecht and Hoffman 2016). There are currently plans to use it by 2020, but this is not for oxygenation of Mars. To oxygenate the entire planet will take far longer with a 10 gram/hour rate. If used on a larger scale, MOXIE can be the primary oxygen producer for Mars (Hecht and Hoffman 2016). Another resource critical for human survival is water. Currently, water has been found on Mars near the poles and at mid northern latitudes (Plaut et al. 2009). To release this water, space entrepreneur Elon Musk proposes a plan to detonate nuclear bombs on the poles. The water released is claimed to be sufficient to support humans (Musk 2017). The Curiosity rover launched by NASA has confirmed that Mars has required elements for synthesizing organic molecules necessary for life: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. The rover also found a streambed, showing evidence that water was present at one point (NASA 2015). Jon Grotzinger, a geologist at the California Institute of Technology, discovered after analysis of clay sediments that both flowing and standing water has been present for a duration between hundreds and tens of thousands of years. He claims that both of these discoveries will benefit ease of human integration if they choose to colonize Mars (Grotzinger et al. 2014). Mars colonization as a viable habitat for humans is possible in the distant future.
We Should Disregard Mars as a Potential Future Habitat
There are claims that we should disregard a manned mission and potential colonization efforts to Mars due to tight budgets, health risks, and ethical concerns surrounding preexisting life on Mars. At the Capitol Hill Luncheon, Robert Lightfoot, NASA's associate administrator, declared that a mission must be done with one tenth of the budget that NASA had for the Apollo mission that sent astronauts to the moon (NASA 2015). Furthermore, "industry sources offer rough estimates that, using NASA's current practices, the cost is likely between 200 billion and 400 billion" (HC 2016). These figures display the unfeasibility of financing a Mars expedition. There are refutes to this budget, however. Elon Musk gives much cheaper options with his reusable Big Falcon Rocket. Musk estimates the initial cost of the rocket and the project to be 560 million dollars, where it will cost under 140 thousand dollars to launch for every reuse (Musk 2017). Like many other of Musk's claims however, these figures are speculative estimates. Francis Slakey, professor of Physics and Biology at Georgetown University, claims that robotic unmanned missions are sufficient for current missions because they can perform the experiments required on Mars (Slakey and Spudis 2008). Human astronaut health will be risked if they go to Mars. Researchers at the Polaris Project at Iowa State University state that "a serious health threat is that over an extended period (months and years), bones get weaker" (Slakey and Spudis 2008). In addition to bone atrophy, space radiation poses the risk of developing cancer in astronauts (IARC 1992). A limitation of this however, is the failure to address future technologies that may counteract these obstacles. A counterargument against Mars exploration and colonization pertains to the potential life present on Mars (Crane 2017). California Institute of Technology Professor John Grotzinger describe an environment where terrestrial chemolithoautotrophs may have lived (Grotzinger et al. 2017). There are ethical concerns surrounding if humans should disturb potential life. While Mars colonization poses a possible fallback habitat for humans, perhaps disregarding Mars is the best option for now.
From Here -What?
Analysis of the current state of Mars colonization reveals that to achieve long term habitation on Mars, plans are required for the distant future. Near future colonization is not currently feasible and far future plans are not guaranteed either. However, the impeding deadline to do so will approach as humans deplete the earth of habitation as well as resources. Obstacles including lack of technology, limitations of the human body, and economic restrictions will make the path to colonization difficult. However, long term planning and advancement of human technologies will bring colonization to reality. A fast approach to Mars colonization should not be considered lightly, as all possible threats and the elite technology should be considered before making the advance towards Mars. To make Mars almost earth like through terraforming will take at minimum 100,000 years. This path will not be simple; every niche must be factored in before any space travel is condoned, especially by the US government or private corporations. While Mars colonization is not feasible in the near future, the notion is possible, and possibly obligatory, in the distant future.

References

1. Living Planet Report 2016 [Internet]. [Updated 2016 Oct. 27]. World Wildlife Fund. [cited 2018 Mar. 18].Available from: https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/964/files/original/lpr_living_planet_report_2016.pdf?1477582118&_ga=1.148678772.2122160181.1464121326

2. Stephen Hawking's warning: it's time to get the hell of planet Earth [Internet]. [Updated 2018 Mar. 14]. Vox.; [cited 2018 Mar. 18]. Available from: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/20/15836426/stephen-hawking-colonize-other-planets

3. Salotti JM, Heidmann R. Roadmap to a Human Mars Mission. Acta Austronautica. 2014; 104(2):558.564.

4. Elon Musk: In Seven Years, SpaceX Could Land Humans on Mars. [Internet]. [Updated 2017 September 29]. National Geographic; [cited 2017 December 14]. Available from

: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/elon-musk-spacex-Mars-moon-bfr-rockets-space-science/

5. Red Planet versus Dead Planet: Scientists Debate Next Destination for Astronauts in Space [Internet]. [Updated 2017 March 30]. Scientific American.; [cited 2017 December 21]. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-planet-versus-dead-planet-scientists-debate-next-destination-for-astronauts-in-space/

6. Musk E. 2017. Making Humans a Multi-planetary Species. New Space. 5(2): 46-61

7. Berliner AJ, McKay CP, Editors. 2017. The Terraforming Timeline.

In: Lunar and Planetary Science. Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Lunar and Planetary Science Conference; 2017 Mar. 20-24;

Houston, Texas. Houston (TX): Lunar and Planetary Science. p. 1-2.

8. Green JL, Holingsworth J, Brain D, Airapetian , Glocer A, Pulkkinen A, Dong C, Bamford R, Editors. 2017. A Future Mars Environment for Science and Exploration.

In: Proceedings of the 2017 Planetary Science Vision Workshop; 2017 Feb. 28-Mar.1; Washington, District of Columbia. Washington (DC): LPI Contrib. p. 1-2.

9. Hecht MH, Hoffman JA, Editors. (2016). The Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE) on the Mars 2020 Rover.

In: Proceedings of the third International Workshop on Instrumentation for Planetary Missions; 2016 Oct 24-27; Pasadena, California. Pasadena (CA): NASA. P. 1-2.

10. Plaut JJ, Safaeinili A, Holt JW, Philips JR, Head III JW, Seu Roberto, Putzig NE, Frigeri A. 2009. Radar evidence for ice in lobate debris aprons in the mid-northern latitudes of Mars. Geophysical Research Letters. 36(L02203): 1-4.

11. Grotzinger JP, Sumner DY, Kah LC, Stack K, Gupta S, Edgar L, Rubin D, Lewis K, Schieber J, Mangold N, et al. 2014. A Habitable Flavio-Lacustrine Environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars. Science. 343(6169): 1232777.

12. Top 6 Science Discoveries. [Internet]. [Updated 2015 May 18]. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; [Cited 22 December 2017]. Available from: https://Mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/interactives/msl-science-discoveries/

13. NASA finally talks Mars budget, and it's not enough [Internet]. [Updated 2016 January 8]. Houston Chronicle.; [cited 2017 December 27]. Available from: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/NASA-finally-talks-Mars-budget-and-it-s-not-6562388.php

14. Robots vs. Humans: Who Should Explore Space? [Internet]. [Updated 2008 February 1]. Scientific American; [cited 2018 January 1]. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robots-vs-humans-who-should-explore/

15. IARC. Solar and ultraviolet radiation. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man: Volume 55. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1992.

16. Crane L. Should we . . . colonise other planets? New Scientist. 2017;235(3133):35.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Feasibility of Mars Colonization as an Alternative Human Habitat: A Futuristic Outlook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the current rate of human resource expenditure, natural resources and habitats will be in shortage in the future (WWF 2016). A potential solution is to explore and colonize Mars as a viable alternative habitat (Hawking 2017). However, the feasibility of Mars colonization must be determined before plans are prepared.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, students at MIT looked at the Netherlands Mars one projects plan to send people on a one way trip to mars in 2025 and addresses all of the problems that they have missed in their planning of the mission. Examples are their plan for water, growing crops, and the number of supply launches needed to set up a colony.
https://www.space.com/27451-private-mars-colony-feasibility-study.html

# data[].attributes.headline
How Much Fuel it Takes to Launch A Rocket, Peter Buggert

# data[].attributes.subject
How Much Fuel it Takes to Launch A Rocket, Peter Buggert

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html

# data[].attributes.body
Kendra Roberts

Discusses the logistics of going to Mars, and how likely it is to take place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk outlined plans to get hundreds of people to Mars. But are those plans really feasible?

This simulated image provides a look inside the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System for sending humans to Mars.

Credit: SpaceX

Musk, who is founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, outlined a plan to build spacecraft that could each transport on the order of 100 people to the Red Planet. The plan would also include a giant new SpaceX rocket, spacecraft and support systems to help get those people to Mars (or destinations beyond). The even-longer-term goal that tops off Musk's vision is for humans alter Mars' atmosphere and environment to make the planet hospitable to life.

The plan is ambitious in nearly every way, from the technology Musk presented to the time line on which he hopes to accomplish these goals, not to mention the funding that will be required. Even so, the experts we talked to said it doesn't seem impossible, or even unachievable.[ Images: SpaceX's Interplanetary Transport for Mars Colonization]

"There's no technical obstacle to the plan being executable," space policy expert John Logsdon told Space.com. "SpaceX has good engineers. They don't have to really invent much."

Right now, SpaceX is flying nonhuman payloads for NASA and other customers, using the company's Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule (both built entirely in house). SpaceX is scheduled to start flying astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA as early as 2017. The company is also working on a larger rocket, called the Falcon Heavy, and representatives for SpaceX have said they would like to use the rocket to send one of the company's Dragon spacecraft to Mars as early as 2018.

The Falcon 9 has a reusable first-stage booster, which, instead of falling into the ocean and being scrapped after a launch, uses a set of thrusters to reorient itself, and three of its engines to lower itself down onto a landing pad. SpaceX has demonstrated a series of successful booster landings, although the company has not yet reused any of those landed boosters. That landing technology would likely be used to lower spacecraft onto the surface of Mars.

A simulated view of the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System traveling to Mars, using solar panels to gather energy.

Credit: SpaceX

Logsdon said he thinks the main obstacles to SpaceX's Mars plans are money and time.

"The plan he is proposing on the timescale he is proposing seem to me to on the edge of fantasy," Logsdon said. He noted that Musk is known for setting ambitious goals on tight time lines, saying, "That's just Elon. That's his style." [ SpaceX's Mars Colony Plan: By the Numbers]

In addition, Logsdon said that while Musk's plan seemed to explain how humans would get to Mars, there was a significant gap in planning as to how those spacefarers would establish a colony on the Red Planet. Technologies and procedures for surviving on the surface of Mars are, at best, still in the early planning stages. Supporting such a huge influx of people will require food sources, an economic system and energy supplies, which Musk did not explain, Logsdon said.

"He got a little hand-wavy there," Logsdon said.

Because of the huge amount of funding a plan like this will require, SpaceX can't do it alone, Logsdon said. They'll need significant sources of funding, and NASA will likely be one of those sources, he said. As a result, it's very possible that NASA's plans to send humans to Mars will converge with SpaceX's plans, Logsdon added.

Some people are already breaking down the technical specifics of Musk's plan. Those experts include Robert Zubrin, leader of the space advocacy organization the Mars Society.

"In his talk today, Musk presented a number of interesting and very useful ideas," Zubrin wrote on the society's website. "I don't think they are practical in the form he presented them, but with a little modification, they could be made practical and very powerful."

Ahead of Musk's talk on Tuesday, SpaceX representatives announced that the company is working on a rocket engine that would run on methane/oxygen propellant, which the company determined was a more readily available fuel on Mars.

"He's right on the mark about using methane/oxygen propellant, which can be made on Mars, about making the spacecraft reusable and refillable on orbit," Zubrin wrote. However, Zubrin criticized Musk's plan to send one large propulsion system all the way to Mars, instead suggesting a system that would send the spacecraft toward Mars, but remain in orbit around the Earth.

"Musk's mega-Mars plans are welcome news," Leonard David, author of "Mars: Our Future on the Red Planet" (National Geographic, Oct. 2016) and a longtime Space.com contributor, said in an email. "But it is clear that there's far more needed in terms of technological and financial detail before climbing onboard his dream machinery."

"There are a number of 'DUD' (doable under duress) factors that must be dealt with before a true settlement on Mars becomes realistic," David said. Examples of DUD factors are "the types of machinery and power levels needed to run equipment for transforming the abundant resources on Mars into usable, life-supporting and sustaining supplies," he said.

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, outlined the company's plans to colonize Mars, speaking at the International Astronautical Congress meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, on Sept. 27, 2016. Image taken from a SpaceX webcast of the event.

The experts we talked to also agreed that Musk has certainly managed to inspire many people, both in the industry and in the general public, about space exploration. Logsdon said the atmosphere in the room during Musk's talk was "like a rock concert."

"His extraordinary vision and passion is tugging at the adventuresome spirit of humankind, at least those who hunger to be part of a plan that assures our species becomes multiplanetary," David said. He later added that "Musk has served notice that building the bridge between the third and fourth planets in our solar system is an attainable and realizable goal."

Chris Carberry, executive director and co-founder of Explore Mars (a nonprofit created to advance the goal of sending humans to Mars within the next two decades), told David via email that "this announcement is likely to grow enthusiasm for humans on Mars tremendously.

"I think it is important, however, for SpaceX to articulate in more detail - over the next few months - their funding mechanism and how they will overcome the many technical and physiological challenges," Carberry said.

Follow Calla Cofield @callacofield. Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook and Google+. Original article on Space.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feasible or Fantasy? SpaceX's Mars Plan Draws Expert Reactions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday (Sept. 27), billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk outlined plans to get hundreds of people to Mars. But are those plans really feasible? Musk, who is founder and CEO of the private spaceflight company SpaceX, outlined a plan to build spacecraft that could each transport on the order of 100 people to the Red Planet.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Psychologists conduct studies on what astronauts might face during a long journey.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If all goes as NASA - and Elon Musk - have planned, at some point in the not-too-distant future, a group of astronauts will begin a years-long round trip to Mars. In NASA's plan, during each six-month (or more) leg of the journey, the members of a small crew will strap themselves into a cramped spacecraft that offers limited opportunities for recreation, distraction or privacy. As they get farther from Earth, they'll be increasingly isolated from everything they've ever known. Real-time communication with mission control or family members will become impossible.

All of that is a recipe for psychological stress, even above and beyond what astronauts have already experienced. So scientists are trying to identify the unique mental pressures that would accompany a trip to Mars so they can select crews who will cope the best, prepare them to handle the difficulties they will face, and learn how best to help them when they're millions of miles away.

Obviously, the first trip to Mars will be unprecedented. So for clues to what astronauts will face, researchers at NASA and other organizations are relying on various analogs. They've studied long-term missions to the International Space Station and to other isolated, extreme environments where humans live in confined spaces - Antarctica, for example - and they have conducted controlled studies that shut participants in environments designed to mimic the conditions in space in order to identify potential sources of conflict. According to Nick Kanas, a psychiatry professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco and the author of "Humans in Space: The Psychological Hurdles," some of the stressors that come with long-duration space missions include confinement, isolation, the inherently dangerous environment, and monotony. And there are interpersonal stressors, too - conflicts that could arise within a team or with the ground crew.

The NASA selection process includes psychiatric and psychological screening designed to weed out people with behavioral health issues. A NASA report released last year notes that "while mood and anxiety disturbances have occurred, no behavioral emergencies have been reported to date in space flight." A longer mission, though, "greatly increases" the chance that an adverse cognitive or behavioral condition or psychiatric disorder will emerge. That means that in addition to screening candidates, it's crucial to anticipate problems and have a plan to offer support or therapy from afar. The selection panel also looks to identify the people who are most suited to the new challenges of long-haul missions - those who have attributes like working well in teams and understanding how to live peacefully in a group as well as emotional stability and composure under stress.

It's not clear exactly when potential behavioral and interpersonal problems are most likely to pop up. In one simulation called Mars 500, which was conducted in Russia, six male participants - similar in age, career and education to ISS astronauts and selected by the Russian Federation, European Space Agency and China National Space Administration - lived together in a closed chamber for 520 days. They answered weekly questionnaires to gauge their moods, depression levels, conflicts with others, reaction time, stress and fatigue. Researchers found that the response to stressors varied among participants; one man, for example, showed at least some symptoms of depression in 93 percent of the mission weeks. Two crew members showed no signs of behavioral disturbances or psychological distress during the simulation.

But crew members' coping abilities - or lack thereof - showed themselves pretty early on in the mission, said David Dinges, professor and director of the unit for experimental psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine and an author of the study. That suggests it might be easier to pick up on these vulnerabilities in much shorter confinement studies, raising the chances of identifying candidates who are either suboptimal or who might need extra support during the mission.

Some, but by no means all, research has found that on longer space missions and in other extreme environments, psychological and interpersonal difficulties seem to ramp up after the halfway point. "The idea is that some crew members arrive at this milestone with relief that things are going well, only to realize that there is still another half to go before they will be home," Kanas wrote in a paper on potential psychosocial issues during a Mars mission. Kelley Slack, an industrial-organizational psychologist and a member of NASA's behavioral health and performance astronaut-selection team, said that while this so-called third-quarter effect doesn't seem to occur consistently, mission organizers might be wise to provide care packages, special events (perhaps done through virtual reality) or other treats to boost spirits at a time when astronauts might be particularly vulnerable.

Some of the potential pitfalls of a Mars trip are the same as those of previous missions or analogs, only compounded. For example, astronauts will experience microgravity - which can be disorienting and uncomfortable - for much longer. Confinement and isolation are always a problem, but the habitable space in the International Space Station is big - about 15,000 cubic feet. That's the volume of a roughly 1,700-square-foot home with 9-foot ceilings, but because astronauts are weightless, that third dimension serves as habitable, floatable space. The Space Station also offers opportunities for multiple exercise and leisure activities, Slack said. We don't know exactly how big a Mars vehicle will be, but NASA is planning for something that will offer a fraction of the living space on the ISS - current recommendations are for at least 883 cubic feet of habitable space per person, or about 5,300 cubic feet for a six-person crew. (This document shows a proposed layout.) To put that in perspective, I live with two other people (one of them much smaller than the average astronaut), and in our smallish Brooklyn apartment we each have about 2,850 cubic feet of living space. Of course, we can't float to take advantage of all of it.

Storage space will be at a premium, which will make it hard to take, for example, a variety of foods to maintain sensory stimulation. That may sound like a small thing, but imagine the mood you'd be in if you were stuck eating barbecue-flavored energy bars for breakfast for months on end.

Astronauts' sleep cycles, too, can be thrown out of whack, which has wide-ranging implications. When people sleep badly - whether they're not getting enough sleep or their sleep-wake schedule has drifted off the 24-hour cycle, which can happen in the absence of regular stimuli like sunrise and sunset - that affects our brains and behavior, Dinges said. "Emotions deteriorate, it can be harder to concentrate, you may feel like others are picking on you." During the Mars 500 simulation, the same two crew members who experienced no behavioral or psychological problems also showed no sleep or circadian disturbances.

Using blue-spectrum light to promote wakefulness and turning that light off to promote sleep can help keep people on a regular, consistent sleep-wake cycle, but Dinges said there's some evidence that even when lighting cues are used, a subset of space travelers may still experience poor sleep quality that affects their stress and exhaustion levels. Scientists are trying to figure out why, Dinges said. (Sleep is likely to be an issue once astronauts reach Mars as well.)

Then there are the things that the analogs can't fully capture. For one: the full significance of the two-way 25- to 44-minute communications gap between Earth and Mars (this varies depending on the planets' positions). Practically speaking, that makes it tough to maintain a normal back-and-forth with support crew or friends and family at home; at minimum, conversational styles will need to be adjusted. Slack said her group at NASA is looking into whether a modified form of behavioral therapy - perhaps delivered the way some apps now offer therapy via text messages, allowing patients and therapists to respond on their own time frame - might be effective for astronauts who need help with stress or other mental health issues. And there's also ongoing research into using virtual reality to interact with family members as avatars in non-space settings. For example, an astronaut could create a VR treasure hunt, hiding Easter eggs for a child to discover later. But even with these adaptations, it's hard to know how astronauts will handle the communication delay. Earthbound experiments can simulate the time lag - and several have, including Mars 500 and HI-SEAS, a NASA-funded program simulating Mars missions in Hawaii - but it's impossible to simulate how someone will feel when they know that the delay exists because they are hundreds of millions of miles away from their fellow Earthlings.

That sense of isolation will likely only be heightened by something called the Earth-out-of-view phenomenon, which happens when our home planet diminishes in size until it becomes indistinguishable from other astral bodies. "No one has ever lost complete contact with Earth visually," Kanas said. At the very least, not being able to see our planet could take a big source of enjoyment out of the trip, since a survey of 39 astronauts and cosmonauts found that the top positive effect of going to space was gaining a stronger appreciation of Earth's beauty and fragility. On the space station, the top leisure activity is looking out at Earth, either photographing it or just watching it roll by, Slack said.

We can only imagine how astronauts might feel as Earth dwindles in the window. Will that shrinking dot inspire them as interplanetary explorers? Or will it fill them with existential dread? There's only one way to find out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If all goes as NASA - and Elon Musk - have planned, at some point in the not-too-distant future, a group of astronauts will begin a years-long round trip to Mars. In NASA's plan, during each six-month (or more) leg of the journey, the members of a small crew will strap themselves into a cramped spacecraft that offers limited opportunities for recreation, distraction or privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Outer space is terrifying - not just on the body, but also on the mind. Extreme environments and situations can stretch people's minds to the brink of sanity, and outer space is no exception. Sure, astronauts are protected inside their multimillion-dollar spacecraft, but those confined little metallic boxes can make one feel isolated and trapped. And we're also making strides to put humans on other planets.

All that time in the deep dark void - probably not good for the noggin, right?

Thankfully, NASA's on it. Welcome to the world alternately called aerospace psychiatry and psychology - a field of medicine where one provides mental health support to aviation professionals.

Astronauts, in particular, have been the focus group for decades now. They're people who we typically think of as the best of the best, "who are otherwise quite healthy, but operate in an abnormal environment," says Gary Beven, NASA Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Psychiatry at NASA Johnson Space Center.

Although the U.S. beat Russia to the moon, it was the Russians who started aerospace psychology. Beven explains that during missions onboard the Salyut 6 (1977 - 1982) and Salyut 7 (1982 - 1991) space stations, Soviet cosmonauts began to experience noticeable signs of psychological distress (or physical problems with an underlying psychological cause) while in space.

This most likely had to do with the longer durations of these missions. Salyut 6 had the first six-month space mission, while Salyut 7 upped the ante with the first-ever eight-month mission. Each mission put two or three cosmonauts in a fairly tight quarters with one another. Several crew stints had to be terminated before completion.

The Russians were spurred into establishing their own space psychology program. "They brought in experts within the field of psychology to work full-time with the Russian space program," says Beven. "They were involved not only with cosmonaut selection, but also providing support and monitoring the psychological well-being of astronauts while they were in space."

Until fairly recently, NASA wasn't interested in long duration missions, so they had no need for psychologists or psychiatrists beyond the initial medical and mental health evaluation during the candidate selection process.

That changed in the mid 1990s, when the U.S. and Russia established the Shuttle-Mir Program to allow NASA to learn about Russia's experiences with long-duration space habitation. At that point, NASA brought in a group of psychologists and psychiatrists to develop a behavioral health and support group for the NASA astronauts that were staying aboard Russia's Mir space station.

"Life aboard Mir was very arduous and very difficult," says Beven. "Some of the (U.S.) astronauts even admitted they felt they had not been psychologically prepared for that type of a mission." Some did exceptionally well, like Shannon Lucid (who stayed on Mir for seven months in 1996), but others publicly acknowledged the difficulty of living in an orbital spacecraft for months at a time. Part of the feelings of psychological anxiety and depression that crept up were simply the result of isolation, difficulty communicating with Russian counterparts on the station, the lack of leisure activities on Mir.

With all that qualitative data and feedback, NASA refined the aerospace psychiatry system as it and the rest of the world began moving forward with the International Space Station. Today's aerospace psychiatry group supports astronauts from the time of training all the way through the end of the mission - and even beyond to assist with post-mission acclimation to life on the ground. "In some ways, we may be involved with astronauts all the way to the end of their career," says Beven. "We get to know them very well, and we also get to know their families very well."

Beven says the candidate selection process is probably the most important way to prepare astronauts for the mental rigors of space travel and life. The goal is to pick candidates who possess sound, sturdy minds. Beven and his team grade candidates on nine different "suitability proficiencies":

ability to perform under stressful conditions

self-regulation of one's emotions and mood

judgement and decision making

They also screen for any history of major mental disorders or disqualifying problems. For the most part, candidates come from occupations where good mental health and the aforementioned traits are already a necessity, sometimes in already extreme or stressful environments - such as fighter pilot living aboard an aircraft carrier, or a scientist who has done stints at research stations in Antarctica. When you're talking about picking 10 astronauts to train out of a final list of 60 people, you're really getting the most mentally and behaviorally qualified group, says Beven.

The vast majority of the aerospace psychiatry group's work, however, revolves around proactively working with active astronauts. Beven says there are a little over 40 active astronauts currently working at NASA, and each one is notified they'll be going up into space about two years prior to the mission launch.

Beven and his team start to work directly with the astronaut (and their spouse), and their work can be categorized into two parts. The first is behavioral medicine: evaluating astronauts' mental health at regular intervals before launch (the last meeting happening 60 days before launch) and training them to identify and deal with instances of psychological detriment in other crew members.

Up in space, Beven or his colleagues will do a private video conference with each astronaut about every two weeks to go over everything pertaining to sleep, crew morale, if that astronaut is dealing well with the workload or experiencing fatigue (or even feeling underworked), their relationship with the ground team, concerns with family, and anything else. If they need immediate help, they can call Beven's cell phone or send him an email in an instant, at any given moment. If any major concerns arise out of these avenues of communication, Beven and his team will confer with the flight surgeon to decide on a course of action.

What kinds of problems are we talking about? For the most part, the typical psychological problems you'd find in space are no different from what you'd find in a high-stress environment here on the surface. They include:

feelings of discouragement

heightened nervousness or anxiety

A nurse working in the E.R. or a long distance runner training for a marathon might experience these kinds of symptoms pretty regularly. But when an astronaut - who is trained more rigorously to withstand stressors - starts to experience these kinds of symptoms, there's a much larger cause for concern, since they're essentially trapped up there in space.

Beven says these problems are not unlike what you might find for someone who is unfamiliar to a long winter in a northern country, or a prisoner who is placed in solitary confinement. "There's nothing unique about the symptoms themselves. What's unique is that, given the spaceflight environment, there's no analogue for them here on Earth, because of the microgravity."

After getting back to Earth, the astronaut undergoes three more psychological assessments - at 3 days, 14 days, and 30 to 45 days after getting back - to go over lessons learned in hindsight and help the astronaut adjust to their new role on the ground.

"Many astronauts, when they land, might not fly again for several years, so they need to determine if they will stay with NASA, or do something else," Beven says - which can be a very difficult, debilitating decision, even among the least neurotic among humans.

The other facet is what Beven calls behavioral support: it's essentially the way he and his team make sure an astronaut has access to hobbies or forms of entertainment that they can indulge in in their leisure time to unwind and de-stress. It could range from music, to watching sporting events or television, having access to games - whatever. Even astronauts love to watch Game of Thrones, and it's critical to keeping their sanity.

"Our belief is that if you're forced for six months or more to live and work in your office, the downtime really needs to be rejuvenating," says Beven.

So far NASA's aerospace psychiatry program has been very successful. Beven says that every astronaut performs "exceptionally well," for 95 percent or more of their mission duration. "Occasionally, they dip down to more mundane frustrations or frictions," he concedes. Yet, for the entire time he and his team have been working with the ISS, "we've not noticed anything that would be of clinical significance," nor anything that would terminate any mission or procedural activity due to psychological detriment.

This is all thanks to the constant communication and support the team can provide astronauts while they're up there in space. But as space travel begins to expand - both in allowing more people access to space travel, and in sending more people out to greater distances beyond Earth's orbit - aerospace psychology will need to change. "In the next 10, 20, or even 50 years, how are we going to provide the system to allow the first Mars crew the same opportunities for psychological support that the ISS crew has - even if there is a 45-minute delay in communications?" asks Beven.

One idea: using A.I. programs to that can provide instant cognitive behavioral therapy to astronauts onboard a spacecraft or working on a Martian or lunar colony. A future astronaut may be having bi-weekly meetings with an artificial robot on their iPad, instead of chatting so frequently with a human being here on Earth. "I don't think anything on Earth right now has been proven to work in that realm, but that's something we need to make certain is working," says Beven.

And as spaceflight becomes commercialized and low-Earth orbit operations are turned over to private companies, it's unlikely commercial astronauts will be as rigorously screened as NASA's astronauts are right now. Beven predicts "there will be someone who does have the first psychotic episode in space," or the first manic episode, or someone who develops a drug or alcohol problem in space.

But he's optimistic: "The way in which those things are dealt with will spread into the psychiatric and psychological community." He thinks, for example, an asteroid mining community will likely contract with a healthcare provider or institution, and work with them to provide on-call psychiatrist and psychologists who are available 24/7. Or, making sure a general physician who is there can detect signs of psychological problems and provide some sort of solution.

At some point, we'll see the first marriage in space, the first child born in space, and more - especially once we see a colony in space or somewhere on another world. "Space travel is becoming normal," says Beven. It's only natural that mental health services acclimate to those changes as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Space Psychology 101: How NASA Keeps Its Astronauts Sane

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Outer space is terrifying -- not just on the body, but also on the mind. Extreme environments and situations can stretch people's minds to the brink of sanity, and outer space is no exception. Sure, astronauts are protected inside their multimillion-dollar spacecraft, but those confined little metallic boxes can mak...

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for September 26

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I like Star Trek as much as the next person. Probably more. But one thing has always bothered me: life on the Starship Enterprise may appear almost utopian but the way the ship - indeed the whole Federation is run - is essentially hierarchical. Humanity's mission to "boldly go" is being undertaken by a quasi-military dictatorship. For a series originally billed by its creator as "wagon train in space", it is hardly land of the free.

Is this really how we want to explore the cosmos and take our culture to the stars?

Now that there are proposals for private missions to the Moon, a plan to send a married couple to Mars and space agency ambitions to fly a crew of six into deep space to explore asteroids, this is no longer a theoretical question. If even only one or two of these schemes come to fruition, in the relatively near future, humans are going to be living in isolation beyond the direct influence of governments on Earth.

Later this year, a conference is being held in London on Extraterrestrial Liberty, looking ahead to a time when we may find ourselves - or our children - living in colonies on the Moon and Mars, or locked aboard a starship on a one-way trip to a distant star. If space technology continues to advance, human communities beyond the Earth would seem to be inevitable. As a result, people are already beginning to contemplate how these societies might operate.

The man who has written the book - actually several books - on the colonisation of space is the founder and President of the Mars Society, Robert Zubrin. His proposals for the establishment of human settlements on Mars are exquisitely detailed, from the first landing to the eventual terraforming of the red planet for a thriving civilisation. The Mars Society currently operates Mars bases on Earth - in the Utah desert and Arctic - to simulate the challenges facing Martian colonists. Like the joint Russian-European Mars500 isolation experiment in 2011, where crewmembers were locked away for more than 500 days, these "missions" include a 15-20 minute time delay between the base and the control centre. Zubrin says the experiments have already given them hints about how extraterrestrial human civilisation might develop.

"One thing we certainly discovered with our simulated Mars missions is that you can't command a crew from mission control," he tells me. "The crew has to be led by the commander, generally operating with a very consultative style." As a result, they have renamed their mission control "mission support", acknowledging that they are no longer completely in charge. "I believe it will not be possible to control a Mars base from the Earth, increasingly the thing will take on a life of its own."
Humanity test
It is a view shared by the Executive Director of the Institute for Interstellar Studies, Kelvin Long. As an engineer, his long-term goal is to develop plans for a starship but he sees the evolution of humanity into a spacefaring species as incremental. "I'm interested in huge space habitats, putting lots of people on space stations and sending them off to the stars," he explains. "But you can't do any of that unless you start with the small stuff and demonstrate that humans can live for sustained periods in space."

So are humans up to the challenge - living 225 million kilometres (140 million miles) away, isolated from mission control as well as friends and family on Earth? When you share a house with someone and they fail to do the washing up, it's a little annoying. Share a Mars base and someone fails to change the carbon dioxide scrubbers, everyone dies.

"Mars is the test for humanity," Long says. "It's the test of our character and, to me, that should be the next destination for the human species - to colonise Mars, to set up a small station and develop it gradually. If we can't crack Mars, then forget everything else that we have ambitions for."

The first people to visit Mars are likely to be selected for their skills and their emotional and physical suitability for the challenge. This will be a highly trained crew of "right stuff" astronauts, used to doing what they are told. But, predicts Zubrin, it will evolve. "The colony might start out as hierarchical, with a base commander and second in command, but the process of nature is going to take it in the direction of freedom."

Things start to get really interesting when Mars explorers stay for years, rather than weeks, and the settlement becomes established. "People will have children... and at some point the Mars base breaks out of becoming a base and becomes an actual village - a real society with real people living real lives, with children in schools and community orchestras. All kinds of things that a base commander might think are completely extraneous."
Society 2.0
Zubrin sees this as a natural, and inevitable, progression from hierarchy to locally accountable democracy and draws parallels with the colonisation of North America. "First you had independence from the West India Company, then ultimately from the British Crown and that's how life is," he says. "I think a Mars base may well start out as a bureaucratically structured entity but when you have people living real lives, they're going to be pushing against the boundaries of that. And if you want to leave the colony, the easiest thing would be to get together with some other people and found additional colonies on Mars."

As this human civilisation 2.0 expands, then the Earth may no longer seem so attractive - certainly to the second and third generation Martians. "I tend to think that Martians will not want to go back to Earth," says Zubrin. "Firstly because Earth's gravity will be very unpleasant for them, if they've grown up in one third gravity, and they will be exposed to a much greater risk of disease."

Above all, they will also no longer consider Earth as home. "The whole point is to create new branches of human civilisation," Zubrin explains. "It'll have its own dialect, its own literature, own jokes and sense of humour. It's going to be different, a different culture, and I think that's good."

But will human society 2.0 be any better? Or will it be the same brilliant, terrible, messy, artistic, destructive, ingenious, horrific civilisation our Martian colonists left behind? I suggest to Kelvin Long that perhaps Star Trek might be the society to aim for. "Many people would like to live in that sort of world, a utopian future," he replies. "I'm sure the new world will be rockier than that but hopefully when we as Earthlings go into space, we won't be fighting each other."

Of course, several thousands of years of history suggest this is a wildly optimistic, maybe even foolhardy, prediction. Even in the Star Trek universe, crewmembers frequently disagree. When humans get together - particularly in high-pressure environments - tensions are bound to arise.

Future colonists will need to have the administrative structures, laws and social etiquette in place to avoid conflict, either through ruthless dictatorship or, more likely, discussion, compromise and some degree of consensus. At first they will probably take those structures from Earth but, ultimately, will develop new ways of living together more suited to their environment and, says Long, because space changes people: "Astronauts often have a different outlook, having seen the Earth from above," says Long. "When humans who go to Mars look back and see that pale blue dot in the distance and think 'everything I've known is on that planet,' it's bound to affect them. And hopefully improve them."
If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on Future, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I like Star Trek as much as the next person. Probably more. But one thing has always bothered me: life on the Starship Enterprise may appear almost utopian but the way the ship - indeed the whole Federation is run - is essentially hierarchical. Humanity's mission to "boldly go" is being undertaken by a quasi-military dictatorship.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes a neuroscience study done by NASA (I found the original study and it's legitimate) on the potential effect of the mars atmosphere on the human brain. They found that a significant amount of time in an environment similar to mars correlated with shrinking in the hippocampus, which could potentially have negative impacts on the memory of people who colonize mars. They also found that it damaged brain plasticity, meaning that the brain is less likely to be able to adapt to the mars environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Scientist Asks the Public has revealed that 40 per cent of men want to go to Mars, but new evidence suggests the lengthy trip may be bad for your brain

Many people would consider going on a one-way mission to Mars, according to the 2018 New Scientist Asks the Public survey. But new evidence suggests that the lengthy trip may be bad for the part of your brain involved in forming memories.

The survey, carried out in August by Sapio Research on a representative sample of 2026 UK adults, found that 50 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women would be happy to go on a return trip to Mars. As for a one-way trip, 40 per cent of men said they would definitely or probably want to go, compared with 20 per cent of women.

This is despite the known physical risks that the six-month journey to Mars would involve. Aside from space-flight accidents, high exposure to radiation from cosmic rays could lead to DNA damage and cancer.

Advertisement

And there may be other unanticipated dangers. A NASA study presented at the recent Federation of European Neuroscience Societies conference in Berlin, Germany, suggests that a two-year mission with just a handful of crewmates could damage the brain.

The study involved 16 volunteers doing 30-day stints in a simulated Mars base with only three other people for company in their pod. By the end of the study, the participants showed slight shrinking of a brain area called the hippocampus, made up of sausage-shaped structures that are essential for forming new memories.

The study found that one end of the volunteers' left hippocampus - known as the head end - shrank by about 3 per cent on average.

Team-member Anika Werner of Charité - Berlin University of Medicine suggests this shrinking may have been caused by social isolation and the stress of being watched 24 hours a day. The participants exercised six days a week, so the effect is unlikely to have been caused by inactivity.

Plastic brain

What effect it might have on a person's mental abilities is unclear. The hippocampus help us find our way around, but the navigation skills of the would-be astronauts were unaffected in computer tests during the study.

Hugo Spiers of University College London says the head end of the hippocampus may be less important for navigation and more involved in using memories to guide other kinds of behaviour. However, a longer study by the same team, looking at nine people who spent a winter at an Antarctic base, found hippocampus shrinkage that was linked to worse scores on spatial ability tests.

We don't know how the volunteers' hippocampus shrank. It might have been brain cells dying, a lack of new cells being generated, loss of connections between cells or just a reorganisation of this brain area.

Werner predicts, though, that any astronauts would recover after returning to Earth. "If you have these changes, they are very reversible. The brain is very plastic. But it is something that has to be taken into account."

Many studies have attempted to assess the health effects of possible future Mars missions, including those conducted at the Mars Desert Research Station in Utah. Niamh Shaw, who took part in a simulated mission there in 2017, will be describing her experiences at New Scientist Live at ExCeL London on 23 September.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A third of us would go one-way to Mars - but it may shrink your brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Scientist Asks the Public has revealed that 40 per cent of men want to go to Mars, but new evidence suggests the lengthy trip may be bad for your brain Many people would consider going on a one-way mission to Mars, according to the 2018 New Scientist Asks the Public survey.

# data[].attributes.body
A trip to Mars becomes very difficult because it is unlike any space expedition we have done before. This article dives into the problems that may arise between crew members and the psychological challenges such as sleeping, fatigue and depression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human missions to Mars: new psychological challenges and research issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human exploratory missions to Mars represent the most exciting future vision of human space flight. With respect to the distance to travel and mission...

# data[].attributes.body
NASA explains some of the possible social and psychological issues involved with a trip to Mars and how they plan to combat these concerns, such as installing exercise stations, hydroponic gardens and providing depression treatment programs for the trip to the red planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You can probably imagine taking a month-long road trip across the U.S. with five other people in a Winnebago. It'd be a little cramped and you'd likely get on each other's nerves, but at least you'd get to stop for breaks, eat at diners, jump in lakes, and maybe even take pictures at the Grand Canyon.

Now imagine driving in that packed van for six months straight. You can't stop at all to stretch or pick up roadside snacks. You can't open the window for fresh air. And every time you ask Waze for new directions, it takes 40 minutes to get a new map.
Related: Will Mars Colonists Evolve Into This New Kind of Human?
That's similar to the journey the first astronauts who head to Mars will face. Living on the red planet presents its own myriad challenges, but just getting there will be a test of mental endurance unprecedented in the history of spaceflight.

As NASA aims to send a crew to Mars sometime in the 2030s, the space agency has a challenge on its hands: How can they keep astronauts mentally healthy and happy on such long journeys?

The International Space Station (ISS) has been continuously occupied by rotating crews for nearly 17 years, so NASA is well-equipped to deal with the everyday frustrations its astronauts might face on their routine six-month stints in low-Earth orbit.

"We are actually really good at countermeasures and support for the International Space Station," says Kelley Slack, an industrial-organizational psychologist who is part of NASA's Behavioral Health and Performance group that helps select and train astronauts.

Many of those current countermeasures involve keeping astronauts feeling connected to home. They can talk and video-chat with loved ones, mission controllers, and doctors in real-time. They can have media events and press conferences and throw virtual first pitches at baseball games. Resupply missions can bring love notes, fresh fruit, and Thanksgiving dinners from Earth.

Those luxuries won't be available to astronauts bound for Mars, who will be disconnected from home and the life they knew in a way unprecedented in the history of spaceflight. They won't be able to have a real-time conversation with anyone but their crewmates. With up to a 20-minute one-way lag in communications, they'll have to wait 40 minutes to get a response to each message they send to Earth.

Add those stressors to the list of others astronauts are likely to experience - sleep disturbances, lack of privacy, lack of sensory stimulation, monotony, potentially life threatening situations, and the discomfort of being in microgravity - and you might have a recipe for tension.

Space agencies like NASA haven't had to respond to behavioral emergencies during any missions so far, but the likelihood of astronauts developing behavioral problems or psychiatric disorders will increase as mission duration increases, according to a 2015 NASA report about managing health risks for spaceflight. So mission managers have to come up with a new set of strategies to prevent such problems during long trips.

The pioneers who first set out for Mars will be vetted for qualities like psychological resilience, teamwork skills, self-awareness, and even a good sense of humor before they ever leave the planet. Like astronauts before them, they'll have to have the ability to keep their emotional responses in control during high-stress, high-risk situations.

"Neil Armstrong demonstrated this characteristic as he piloted the lunar module for the first landing on the moon," says Tom Williams, an element scientist in the Human Factors and Behavioral Performance group at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. When billows of moon dust prevented him from seeing the lunar surface, Armstrong quickly adapted by looking for surface rocks through the haze. "He reported his heart was pounding but his mind stayed focused and confident from the hundreds of hours of flight stimulations he had experienced."

But the famous stoicism of 20th-century astronauts would only go so far on long journeys in a small habitat. It will become even more important for future astronauts to have people skills like interpersonal tolerance, empathy, and a strong awareness of others' needs.

"The crewmembers will need to be open to discussing psychological stressors with each other," says Nick Kanas, a space psychology expert and an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. This will be especially important since astronauts won't be able to have real-time conferences with mental health professionals on Earth.

Psychologists and behavioral researchers are already trying to anticipate the mental and social problems that might crop up by conducting analog missions that simulate the isolation of living in space.
Related: NASA's Bold Plan to Save Earth From Killer Asteroids
At HI-SEAS missions in Hawaii, astronaut stand-ins live in a Mars-like habitat, cut off from the rest of the world, for up to a year at a time. Their interactions, performance, and stress levels are closely monitored through surveillance cameras, surveys, diaries, and even badges that track their locations. There, scientists have also reported success in testing systems like the Virtual Space Station - a computer program that can walk astronauts through training on conflict and stress management or depression treatment programs.

During another analog mission in Russia, scientists studied the psychological and behavioral changes of a crew that spent 520 days simulating a mission to Mars. Interestingly, the crew reported five times as many conflicts with mission control as they did among themselves. This perhaps highlights how communication lags can put a strain on relationships, and how crews and mission controllers will need to develop a good rapport before the start of the journey.

Elon Musk is still a long way from introducing SpaceX's roomy 100-person spaceship complete with movie theaters and restaurants to keep people occupied on a mission to Mars. NASA plans to send its first astronauts to Mars in an Orion capsule and an attached habitat. Though the exact configuration of that craft has yet to be determined, it will be quite small compared to other crafts.

One NASA report calculated that the minimum amount of habitable space needed for a Mars mission is 883 cubic feet per astronaut - compare that to the 3,008 cubic feet of habitable space per astronaut on the ISS, which is so roomy that astronauts could go a whole day without seeing their colleagues.

The small size not only means less privacy, but also less room to perform essential tasks that have benefits for mental and physical health, such as working out. On the ISS, astronauts currently have a variety of options - special treadmills, exercise bikes, and resistance machines - to complete the two hours of exercise they need to maintain bone density and muscle strength in a microgravity environment. But if you've ever seen videos of astronauts struggling out of a Soyuz capsule, you know it's still not easy readjusting to Earth's gravity. Astronauts who land on Mars, which has a third of Earth's gravity, won't have any terrestrial crews to help them.

In addition to strength, exercise can provide sensory stimulation, which is another important relief from the pressures of living in space. Other outlets on future missions might include growing plants in hydroponic gardens - a restorative activity (as any recreational gardener knows) as well as a source of nutrition that is already being tested on the ISS. But researchers are also exploring virtual escapes from the restricted conditions and isolation of spaceflight.

NASA has funded scientist Peggy Wu of the research company SIFT to study how VR could provide psychological support for astronauts on deep space missions. SIFT's program - which is called ANSIBLE - contains virtual worlds on which astronauts could visit art galleries, nature preserves, and environments similar to home, or interact with avatars of their friends.

Last year, NASA also funded research into a version of suspended animation - the ultimate distraction from a tedious flight. SpaceWorks, the company that proposed the idea, wants to put astronauts in a state of advanced hypothermia to allow them to hibernate during their Mars journey.

Missions like HI-SEAS and Mars500 can only go so far in mimicking the real conditions of space, so there will be some uncertainty in the first Mars missions.

Williams says a significant question is how deep space radiation may impact the human body, especially the central nervous system, in ways that could have psychological and behavioral effects.

Another big unknown for long-distance space exploration is how the "Earth out of view" phenomenon is going to affect astronauts. The No. 1 leisure activity on the ISS is looking at and photographing Earth. It's not clear if virtual windows simulating a view of Earth or the new view of the red planet's canyons, deserts, and mountains will have the same effect.

"It will be first time that we've been totally disconnected from Earth," Slack says. "There's no good way of studying that."

In some respects, the people we send to Mars might be more like Lewis and Clark than 20th-century astronauts, Slack says. "They'll be going out and they'll have a concept of what's going to happen, but there's a great degree of uncertainty."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How NASA will keep astronauts from going stir-crazy on long space missions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You can probably imagine taking a month-long road trip across the U.S. with five other people in a Winnebago. It'd be a little cramped and you'd likely get on each other's nerves, but at least you'd get to stop for breaks, eat at diners, jump in lakes, and maybe even take pictures at the Grand Canyon.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how so many people focus on the physical or technical issues that may occur with traveling to space and how we should instead really focus on the mental health or the psychological/psychiatric issues that can or could arise. Overall this article discussed previous issues that have already occurred in space and some interesting examples.

# data[].attributes.body
If humans want to establish a long-term colony on Mars, we will eventually need to be able to have children there, but reproducing in that environment would be really complicated. All the effects that people experience in space would have effects on fetus or yound child too, so in the future we might need to edit our DNA to give people traits to thrive on Mars, but this might eventually lead to creating new species of humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA

If humans want to establish a long-term colony on Mars or elsewhere in space, we'll eventually need to be able to have children there.

But reproducing in the vastly different Martian environment would be extremely complicated.

All of the health effects people experience in space- exposure to radiation and changes in bone, muscle, and bodily fluids - would have effects on a developing fetus or young child.

We may someday decide to edit human DNA to give people traits that could help them thrive on Mars.

Eventually, that could lead to creating new species of humans.

This tiny blue rock upon which we hurtle through the vastness of space is the perfect home for us.

We can breathe the air and drink the water - both of which are essential to life as we know it. Our atmosphere protects us from radiation that could mutate our DNA and cut our lives short. We and the other creatures on Earth have evolved to function according to the planet's gravity, which affects our bones, muscles, and the fluids inside our body.

NASA and other space agencies - as well as individuals like Elon Musk- are actively working towards creating settlements on Mars. But before humans can attempt to establish long-term outposts on Mars or elsewhere in space, we have a lot to consider. Beyond the logistics of space travel, food, water, breathable air, and radiation, there's the question of human reproduction.

A paper newly published in the journal Futures describes just how complicated that could be.

Since Mars is the likely first location for a long-term populated outpost, the researchers behind the paper decided to analyze some physical and social problems that we'd encounter in trying to have babies on the red planet.

"A manned mission to Mars and the establishment of the first human settlement in outer space was once a mere figment of science fiction but is now being planned and expected to take place in the following 20 years," the authors wrote. "We assume that human reproduction in a Mars settlement will be necessary for the long-term success of an outer space mission."

Could there ever be new generations of Martians?

Any human settlement on Mars will be initially populated by crews from Earth. But at some point, if we truly want to have a large long-term Martian colony with a sustainable population, kids are going to need to be born there.

Whether or not it's possible to have children in the Martian environment is still unknown.

We know that when astronauts spend time in space, it has serious effects on their bodies. A lack of gravity causes body fluids to shift, which can change and impair vision as pressure changes affect the eyeball. Bones become less dense and muscles can atrophy, though regular exercise can help reduce these effects. People get taller as they stretch out, uncompressed. Then there's radiation exposure, which affects DNA and could increase cancer risk.

Being on Mars wouldn't be exactly like being on the International Space Station, which is where most of this information comes from. But Mars still only has about 38% of the gravity we experience on Earth.

We don't know how these changes would affect reproductive cells, fertilization, embryonic development, the developing fetus, or growing children.

It's possible that children born and raised on Mars might have an easier time adapting to the requirements of life there, since it would be the world they would grow up in. But what those adaptations would look like are anyone's guess.

Many of these questions can be studied, especially with animal models. But they'll be important issues to investigate before any Mars colonization plans take shape.

Ethical questions

Assuming humans do someday try to reproduce in space, a host of other intriguing questions arise.

One is how big a population needs to be to truly sustain itself. According to the paper's authors, accepted estimates of the minimum size for a self-sustaining group range from 5,000 to 5,800 individuals. But they write that a Martian colony may need to have a larger population due to the extreme nature of the environment.

Then there's the issue of reproductive rights. Since living on Mars isn't going to be easy, the authors write that there should be genetic counseling available for couples to make sure that traits that could help people survive on Mars are encouraged in the reproductive process. At the same time, they write that liberalized abortion policies would be important, since pregnancies could pose high risks to mothers and environmental conditions could make serious birth defects more likely.

People who do choose to have children should be carefully supported through that process, according to the paper. That support system would need to extend beyond birth to help parents cope with the stresses that come with Martian children.

The authors also bring up an even bigger question: how much we should use technology to transform humans living in space.

Potential solutions

It's possible that some of us carry genetic traits that make us better suited to life on Mars than other people. Such traits may make it easier for our bodies to adapt to reduced gravity, for example, or make us less susceptible to cancer or disability caused by radiation.

A Martian colony might encourage people with those genetic traits to pass them on.

But it also might be possible to use genetic editing technologies to give people these traits and to modify DNA in other ways that make it easier for humans to survive in space. Genetic editing tools like CRISPR, which can find and replace sections of DNA, could allow doctors to modify embryos conceived via in vitro fertilization to give them these space-life-friendly traits.

Eventually, it might turn out that the "humans" who thrive best on Mars don't much resemble people on Earth.

Science fiction authors have wrestled with this idea. In "The Expanse," authors Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck (pen name: James S. A. Corey) describe how "belters," residents of human settlements in the asteroid belt, are different from Earth-born humans. They have elongated bodies uncompressed by gravity, and their bones can't support human weight when exposed to the crushing pressure of life on Earth. It's possible that people born and raised on Mars would have a similarly difficult time adapting to life on Earth.

It's even feasible that humanity might speciate: develop new species that evolve out of Homo sapiens, according to the authors of the paper. They say that's unlikely to happen naturally, but could happen if humans wind up heavily genetically engineered to better survive on different planets.

Is escaping to Mars really a possibility?

In the paper, the authors quote Stephen Hawking, who once said: "I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as it could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonizing other planets."

But this paper shows how complicated that insurance policy would be. And that analysis is yet another reminder that we need to ensure that humanity can continue to survive on its home planet.

Astronaut Mae Jemison leads an organization called 100-Year Starship, a NASA- and DARPA-funded project that launched in 2011 to tackle the questions involved in making humans capable of voyaging beyond our solar system within the next 100 years.

But as Jemison explained to me in 2016, most of us are already on the starship that's best suited for carrying us through space: it's Earth.

"We're going to be on this planet," she said.

That's not to say that we shouldn't settle on Mars - it's important to understand how we could survive on new worlds. But we shouldn't avoid tackling simpler issues like climate change in order to keep humanity's first home habitable, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Having sex and reproducing in space comes with serious scientific and ethical problems. We may need to create a new species of human to make it work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA and other space agencies - as well as individuals like Elon Musk - are actively trying to work towards settlements on Mars. But for a long term colony on Mars to be sustainable, we'll need to be able to have babies there. And that's complicated.

# data[].attributes.body
This article runs through the mental challenges that the crew going to the red planet will experience on their flight there. Among these problems is same old routine that astronauts must do to keep alive, but because it is the same routine repeated, it tends to sap their strength/motivation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photograph by NASA

Life outside Earth has its own Hobbesian description: isolated, confined, and extreme-or I.C.E. "Space is the quintessential ICE environment," according to a new paper, published in American Psychologist. Space includes inhospitable planets like Mars, whose arresting vistas, canyons, and mountains beckon. But only humans sealed inside cumbersome suits, trained to weather such nerve-racking circumstances, can explore them. Just getting to Mars, says Lauren Blackwell Landon, the paper's lead author and a behavioral performance researcher at NASA, presents a major challenge. "The astronauts will be months away from home, confined to a vehicle no larger than a mid-sized RV"-the still-under-development Orion spacecraft -"for two to three years," she says. Unlike on the International Space Station, "there will be an up to 45-minute lag on communications to and from Earth."

Orion is NASA's answer to the call of deep-space exploration. "It will be the safest, most advanced spacecraft ever built," a NASA document states, "and it will be flexible and capable enough to take us to a variety of destinations," including the moons of Mars and, by the mid or late 2030s, the red planet itself. Landon and her co-authors, Kelley J. Slack and Jamie D. Barrett, worry about how a crew of four, Orion's max capacity, will fare on the journey. They will be "operating in extreme isolation and confinement," the authors write. "Special considerations," like screening for certain personality traits, for example, "must be made to enhance teamwork and team well-being..."

This may be true for astronauts aboard Orion. But perhaps not aboard SpaceX's Big Falcon Rocket, or B.F.R., which began construction in March. "The BFR is the big dream," Alan Boyle, a veteran space journalist and a science editor at Geekwire, said. "It's what will fulfill Musk's goal of getting to Mars." With 40 cabins, it can house upwards of a 200-person crew. "You could conceivably have five or six people per cabin, if you wanted to cram people in," Musk said last year, in a presentation of the the B.F.R. "But, mostly, we would expect to see two to three people per cabin, so normally about a hundred people per flight to Mars." Those passengers will also, according to current plans, have "large common areas" at their disposal, with at least one dedicated, Musk added, to "entertainment." In other words, though space may be the quintessential I.C.E. environment, Musk appears to be aiming to make trips there-aspirationally scheduled to commence in 2024-as far away from I.C.E.-y as possible.

It might be a good thing that the Orion spacecraft won't be taking any astronauts to Mars in the near future. It's a journey NASA may not know how to train for. Landon and her colleagues write:

First, few astronauts have participated in long-duration space missions, and there is a limited number of analog missions per year...Second, researchers and astronauts from different cultures may use disparate models. Third, astronauts have a heavy nominal workload, leaving little time for answering surveys or participating in teamwork research related to mission experiences. Fourth, there is a lack of standard measures, both in spaceflight studies and spaceflight analog studies, further restricting total sample sizes and the comparison of findings across isolated, confined, extreme environments. Due to lack of data from spaceflight and spaceflight analog environments, meta-analysis is simply not a viable option for examining many of the different factors that will be critical to teams on a Mars mission.

One recently completed analog study, sponsored by NASA, is HI-SEAS-Hawai'i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation. Without real-time communication to the outside world, six crew members lived and worked for over a year 8,000 feet above sea level, in a dome around the size of a 3-bedroom apartment, to help figure out how well an isolated and confined team could perform as a Mars research outpost. After a few months in, Sheyna Gifford, the crew's physician, wrote for Nautilus about the surprising lack of "asthenia"-a word that the Russian space program used to describe the way the banality of routine can sap a cosmonaut's strength.

"Whether in real or simulated space, the daily and weekly regimentation of everything we do for the sake of safety and efficiency-like swapping air filters, filing reports with ground control, running someone else's experiments, and so on-as well as our lack of power to break or even affect the pattern, can become oppressive," she wrote. "Yet, through it all, asthenia has yet to appear. Here's why, I think: On [simulated] Mars, each of us knows how un-alone we are and how essential each person on our mission is. The doctor, the biologist, the physicist, the soil scientist, the engineer, and the architect count on each other for nearly everything we need."

Psychological reports like these, Landon and her colleagues say, are valuable despite spaceflight itself not being part of the simulation. "Fortunately, even with a disconnect between the physical environments of analogs and spaceflight, psychological fidelity can be achieved," they write. "When talking to the astronaut corps about his recent trip searching for meteorites on the surface of Antarctica, Don Pettit, an astronaut with experience on two ISS missions, stated that although the 'physics' of Antarctica might be 'wrong,' the psychological 'mind-set' was right."

Along with needing several more years' worth of data on what promotes and hinders teamwork on long-duration missions in I.C.E. environments, NASA will also need to be more empirical in its team-selection process, the authors write. "NASA currently does not use a scientifically based approach to composing teams, but this knowledge gap is scheduled to be filled by the 2020s." Going to Mars on Orion is such a high-stress, high-pressure scenario that aspects of personality and background that don't normally merit close attention start to matter to team functioning. "Given that nuanced and deep-level characteristics of values, culture, and humor are important for successful long-term teamwork, more research is needed into long-duration, international teams and data-driven methods of team composition that may be applied across cultures," Landon and her colleagues write. "A team living together for multiple years will be required to not only perform task assignments effectively but also fulfill social roles within the team," like being the one who can be counted on to ease tensions by cracking jokes.

If SpaceX's B.F.R. avoids some of the challenges of an Orion-style mission to Mars, it also creates new ones-like how to have around 200 people, arriving on two B.F.R.s accompanied by two cargo-filled ones, survive on an alien planet while building the rudiments of a settlement. If things go according to plan, those first explorers will also find two other B.F.R.s filled with cargo-to be launched in 2022-waiting for them. "We should-particularly with six ships there-have plenty of landed mass to construct the [rocket] propellant depot, which will consist of a large array of solar panels, and then everything necessary to mine and refine water, draw the CO ₂ out of the atmosphere, and then create and store deep cryo CH ₄ and O ₂," Musk wrote in a New Space paper. The more granular details of how six ships transform into a Mars base are undecided. But there's little doubt that it'll take teamwork, among other things, to start "terraforming Mars," as Musk says, "and making it a really nice place to be."

Brian Gallagher is the editor of Facts So Romantic, the Nautilus blog. Follow him on Twitter @brianga11agher.

Get the Nautilus newsletter

The newest and most popular articles delivered right to your inbox!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Psychological Challenges of Just Getting to Mars - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Life outside Earth has its own Hobbesian description: isolated, confined, and extreme-or I.C.E. "Space is the quintessential ICE environment," according to a new paper, published in American Psychologist. Space includes inhospitable planets like Mars, whose arresting vistas, canyons, and mountains beckon. But only humans sealed inside cumbersome suits, trained to weather such nerve-racking circumstances, can explore them.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses six health problems that Martian colonizers could experience on their journey through space based on research done on the ISS. They highlight physical issues such as sickness, eye issues, and weaken muscles, but also mental/social issues like what happens during medical emergencies, how does someone getting a cold affect other crew members, and the standard mental stress that comes with the journey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA has announced its aim to have humans on planet Mars by the 2030s. But long-distance space travel brings with it a unique set of health problems.

How will the people who make the trip cope with the mental and physical rigors of the journey? Marc Jurblum, a training psychiatrist at the University of Melbourne and member of the Australasian Society of Aerospace Medicine's Space Life Sciences Committee, outlined six of the key health issues facing prospective space travelers.
1. Space sickness
On Earth, tiny gyroscopes in your brain give you spatial awareness. They tell you when you tilt your head, accelerate, or change position. But it's different in space. Jurblum said:

In Zero G, those don't work as well and, as a result, astronauts suffer a lot of nausea. A lot of them spend days feeling incredibly unwell. It's like being seasick.

There are many examples. In 1968, NASA launched Apollo 8. Astronaut Frank Borman suffered such a bad bout of space sickness on the way to the moon that Mission Control considered shortening the mission.

Fortunately, just like people going to sea eventually get their sea legs, astronauts develop 'space legs' within about two weeks. But once they return to Earth, the opposite is true - many of them have to work hard to get their 'Earth legs' back.
2. Mental stress
Space travel is still inherently dangerous. Essentially you are floating through an airless vacuum in a sealed-up container, only staying alive because of the machinery recycling your air and water. There is little room to move and you're in constant danger from radiation and micro-meteorites. Jurblum said:

We don't know what months and months of living in an unchanging capsule habitat with only blackness outside the little window will do to people's minds. Even if you turn the ship around, Earth will be a distant speck of light. There's little more than hydrogen atoms for hundreds of thousands of kilometers around you.

Research groups are looking at how to maintain mental health in extreme environments, including using interventions such as meditation and the positive impact pictures of nature can have on space travelers. Virtual Reality might also help by giving the astronauts a rest from the monotony.

Then there's the issue of emotions. On Earth, if people get upset with their boss or workmate they might take out their frustrations at home or the gym. In space, astronauts can't afford to get angry with each other. They must be able to react really quickly, communicate, and work as a team.

In contrast, there's a positive psychological phenomenon of space travel, known as the "overview effect." Jurblum said:

Most astronauts who have gone into space have come back with a change of perspective. They become more environmentalist, spiritual, or religious.

NASA astronaut Ron Garan described it as

...the realization that we are all traveling together on the planet and that if we all looked at the world from that perspective we would see that nothing is impossible.

3. Weaker muscles
There is no gravity on the International Space Station (ISS), and Mars only has about a third of Earth's gravity. This plays havoc with the human body, Jurblum said. Our muscles are so used to fighting gravity on Earth that its absence means they weaken and waste.

Astronauts must do two to three hours of exercise every day just to maintain muscle mass and cardiovascular fitness. The heart loses muscle which would be extremely dangerous if they didn't maintain it through exercise.

Tight, elastic body suits or "penguin suits," developed by the Soviet space program, attempt to mimic the effects of gravity on muscles by providing a deep compression force on the skin, muscle, and bone-meaning they have to work harder to perform normal movements. But they're far from perfect, Jurblum says.
4. Eye problems
A common hazard on the ISS is the fine specks that float around the cabin, often lodging in the eyes of astronauts and causing abrasions. But the lack of gravity and the movement of fluids are what can cause the most serious issues for astronauts, said Jublum.

Most end up wearing glasses in space and when they come back, some even have permanent changes to their vision.

The deterioration results from the fluid shift to the head building up in the skull where it bulges into the back of the eyeball and changes the shape of the lens. Jurblum said:

This bulging seems to cause the irreversible vision problems we're trying to understand and manage.

5. Coughs and colds
If you catch a cold on Earth, you stay home and it's no big deal. Space is another story. You're living a densely packed, confined space-breathing recirculated air, touching common surfaces over and over again, with a lot less opportunity to wash.

The human immune system doesn't work as well in space, so mission members are isolated for a few weeks before lift-off to guard against illness. Jurblum said:

We're not sure why, but it seems that bacteria are more dangerous in space. On top of that, if you sneeze in space, all the droplets come straight out and keep going. If someone has a flu, everyone is going to get it and there are limited medical facilities and a very long way to the nearest hospital.

CPR training for ESA astronauts during parabolic flights. 6. Medical emergencies
Luckily, there have not yet been any major medical emergencies in space, but astronauts have training to deal with them.

For instance, ISS astronauts have developed a way to perform CPR in zero gravity by bracing their legs on the ceiling while pushing down on the patient on the floor below.

While a rescue from the ISS can be performed within a day, the people who go to Mars will be an eight-month journey away, and they need to be prepared to manage on their own, Jurblum said:

How do you lift them on a stretcher, get them into an airlock, out of their suit, and onto a surgical table with a doctor, a botanist, and a couple of scientists to help do surgery? You may have an orthopedic surgeon on Earth sending you information on how to do it, but there is a 20-minute time delay.

Here on Earth, Mars Analogs simulate some of the conditions human beings could experience during a future mission to Mars, allowing researchers to work on solutions to situations like what to do if a team member breaks their leg while outside the base.

Bottom line: Six health challenges for the human journey to Mars.
Read more from the University of Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Traveling to Mars? Top 6 health challenges | EarthSky.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA has announced its aim to have humans on planet Mars by the 2030s. But long-distance space travel brings with it a unique set of health problems. How will the people who make the trip cope with the mental and physical rigors of the journey?

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights four major mental health risks that people planning to live on mars will face. This article explains the Mars One programme, with four people going to live and try to survive on Mars, and that they will be filmed while people on Earth can watch it like reality TV. The four mentioned are social isolation, confinement, loss of privacy and the lack of mental health services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colonising Mars will be as much a challenge of psychology as engineering. Photograph: Denis Scott/Corbis

Since April, thousands of people have applied to take a one-way trip to Mars. Following further stages of selection and training, the plan is for the first four astronauts to lift off in 2022. After a seven-month journey they will settle permanently on the red planet to conduct scientific experiments and do whatever it takes to survive. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be able to watch their lives unfold on reality TV.

The Mars One programme is daring but is it realistic? Nasa is sceptical about a private one-way mission and instead plans to send more rovers followed by a manned return mission sometime in the 2030s. Others have questioned Mars One's business model, technical feasibility and the health risks posed by radiation.

On top of these concerns, Martian colonists will face extreme psychological conditions. Mars One claims to have discussed its plans "with experienced and respected psychologists" but doesn't name them or refer to any supporting evidence. At the same time they have called for applicants who are resilient, adaptable, curious, trusting and creative but without saying why these particular traits are the most important, how they will be measured, or how the standards for selection will be set. Even Professor Raye Kass, who appears to be one of their few advisers on mental health issues, offers little more than anecdotes as evidence for the psychological feasibility of the programme.

Existing research suggests that the colonists will face at least four major psychological challenges. Individually, each of these is serious enough to raise a red flag. In combination, they are a disaster waiting to happen.

Social isolation

The Mars One colonists will be the most isolated humans to have ever lived. Because of their distance from Earth, real time interaction with people back home will be impossible - the shortest delay for sending transmissions will be about 10 minutes. For the rest of their lives they will be able to interact directly with only their fellow colonists, who will increase from three people in the first two years to 23 people after 10 years.

These circumstances will probably cause mental illness in at least some of the colonists. Decades of research shows that prolonged social isolation in astronauts can lead to depression, insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, boredom and emotional instability. Mars One believes that selecting applicants with the right attitude will help prevent such problems. As Kass puts it:

It all starts with attitude. Think of it. When a person finds herself, or himself, on Mars, with no way of being able to come home, and potentially questioning the decision that they have made, what is going to ground them in the choice they have made?

But we know that even the most highly trained astronauts suffer the side effects of isolation - and these are people who know they will be coming home, and who have years (sometimes decades) more experience than the Mars One crew will have. Professor Nick Kanas, a Nasa-funded expert in the psychological effects of space exploration, says that when Earth is out of view for an extended time, "crewmember psychology may result in increased feelings of isolation, homesickness, dysphoria, or even suicidal or psychotic thinking."

The notion that "attitude" will somehow inoculate the colonists against these conditions is at best naive, at worst irresponsible. How will the Mars One programme react when a colonist who was deemed psychologically fit suffers a major breakdown after years of isolation, with no way to get home? Who will be responsible then?

Confinement

A life on Mars will be a life indoors. The atmosphere is unbreathable and the global temperature averages -60C. From the moment they land, the colonists will spend at least 80% of their time within units that offer about 50 square metres per person - that's the size of two average-sized bedrooms. Consider a normal day in your own life and the variety of environments you find yourself moving between, as well as the different sensory experiences you take for granted. Compared with Earth, the colonists will live out their entire lives with a fraction of this exposure.

Not surprisingly, long-term confinement in a small space is associated with many of the same problems triggered by social isolation: depression, anxiety and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms. Animal studies show that captivity can stunt the normal development of young primates, leading to abnormally high fear and reduced exploration behaviours. What does this say about the side effects for children being born and raised in such an environment?

Loss of privacy

While the colonists go about their business, Earth will be watching them 24-7. We already know that surveillance can cause stress, fatigue, depression and anxiety, which will add even more weight to an already extreme mental health burden. The Mars One team has made no public comment on the effects of combining the risk factors of social isolation and confinement with surveillance, but we do know that the programme depends on the money raised by reality TV contracts. So presumably the show must go on.

What happens when the colonists get fed up with the interplanetary Truman Show and turn the cameras off? Will Mars One be forced to abandon them?

Lack of mental health services

Perhaps the most worrying concern is that the colonists won't have real-time access to mental health services such as counselling and psychotherapy. Recent studies have found that simulated psychotherapy via an automated computer programme called Deprexis can yield small-to-moderate benefits in depression, but this approach is only about 50% as effective as normal psychotherapy. And given that the colonists are likely to suffer from a wider range of psychological problems than depression, automated mental health interventions simply won't cut it.

Where does all this leave us? Mars One may be audacious and media-savvy but it is built on a psychological vacuum. In addition to the issues raised here, the planners have given no visible consideration to how they will address the lack of modern medicine, sexual relationships, pregnancy, raising children, ageing and death. And that's not even considering the public trauma on Earth that would follow a televised tragedy on Mars.

Mars One is either ignoring the psychological consequences of colonisation or failing to disclose them. Either way, if their plan goes ahead - and for the sake of the colonists we might hope that it doesn't - then Nasa's manned mission in the 2030s may well be dubbed Mars Rescue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars One: The psychology of isolation, confinement and 24-hour Big Brother | Chris Chambers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since April, thousands of people have applied to take a one-way trip to Mars. Following further stages of selection and training, the plan is for the first four astronauts to lift off in 2022. After a seven-month journey they will settle permanently on the red planet to conduct scientific experiments and do whatever it takes to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
Since we are unable to effectively communicate with earth and would have a limited number of people on the trip to mars with us to communicate, it is very likely that those going to mars will experience feelings of loneliness. To put it simply the effects of loneliness, especially in the long term have an extremely negative effect on the human brain especially on children if any where to be born on mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Friendship is a lot like food. We need it to survive. What is more, we seem to have a basic drive for it. Psychologists find that human beings have fundamental need for inclusion in group life and for close relationships. We are truly social animals.

The upshot is, we function best when this social need is met. It is easier to stay motivated, to meet the varied challenges of life.

In fact, evidence has been growing that when our need for social relationships is not met, we fall apart mentally and even physically. There are effects on the brain and on the body. Some effects work subtly, through the exposure of multiple body systems to excess amounts of stress hormones. Yet the effects are distinct enough to be measured over time, so that unmet social needs take a serious toll on health, eroding our arteries, creating high blood pressure, and even undermining learning and memory.

A lack of close friends and a dearth of broader social contact generally bring the emotional discomfort or distress known as loneliness. It begins with an awareness of a deficiency of relationships. This cognitive awareness plays through our brain with an emotional soundtrack. It makes us sad. We might feel an emptiness. We may be filled with a longing for contact. We feel isolated, distanced from others, deprived. These feelings tear away at our emotional well-being.

Despite the negative effects of loneliness, it can hardly be considered abnormal. It is a most normal feeling. Everyone feels lonely sometimes-after a break-up with a friend or lover, when we move to a new place, when we are excluded from some social gathering.

Chronic loneliness is something else entirely. It is one of the surest markers in existence for maladjustment.

In children, it leads to all kinds of problems. Failure to be socially connected to peers is the real reason behind most school dropouts. It sets in motion a course on which children spin their way to outcast status and develop delinquency and other forms of antisocial behavior.

In adults, loneliness is a major precipitant of depression and alcoholism. And it increasingly appears to be the cause of a range of medical problems, some of which take decades to show up.

Psychologist John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago has been tracking the effects of loneliness. He performed a series of novel studies and reported that loneliness works in some surprising ways to compromise health.

Perhaps most astonishing, in a survey he conducted, doctors themselves confided that they provide better or more complete medical care to patients who have supportive families and are not socially isolated.

Living alone increases the risk of suicide for young and old alike.

Lonely individuals report higher levels of perceived stress even when exposed to the same stressors as non-lonely people, and even when they are relaxing.

The social interaction lonely people do have are not as positive as those of other people, hence the relationships they have do not buffer them from stress as relationships normally do.

Loneliness raises levels of circulating stress hormones and levels of blood pressure. It undermines regulation of the circulatory system so that the heart muscle works harder and the blood vessels are subject to damage by blood flow turbulence.

Loneliness destroys the quality and efficiency of sleep, so that it is less restorative, both physically and psychologically. They wake up more at night and spend less time in bed actually sleeping than do the nonlonely.

Loneliness, Cacioppo concludes, sets in motion a variety of "slowly unfolding pathophysiological processes." The net result is that the lonely experience higher levels of cumulative wear and tear.

In other words, we are built for social contact. There are serious-life-threatening-consequences when we don't get enough. We can't stay on track mentally. And we are compromised physically. Social skills are crucial for your health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Friendship is a lot like food. We need it to survive. What is more, we seem to have a basic drive for it. Psychologists find that human beings have fundamental need for inclusion in group life and for close relationships. We are truly social animals.

# data[].attributes.body
This article mentions a plan to send a couple to mars and the issues that may come along with it. It also mentions Biosphere 2, an experiment where a group of inhabitants lived while being separated from the outside world. They developed problems like depression and mood swings. Other problems include people shunning members they don't like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We all have them-a sibling who "borrows" your clothes without returning them, a co-worker who never puts your stapler back where she found it, a spouse who refuses to pick up his socks.
Now imagine being stuck with such a person in a room the size of an RV for 17 months. If the Inspiration Mars Foundation is successful in its bid to launch a woman and a man to fly by the red planet in 2018, privacy is one of many psychological issues crew members will have to deal with.

The foundation, led by space tourist Dennis Tito, formally announced its plan on Wednesday at a Washington, D.C., press conference. (Related: "Manned Mars Mission Announced by Dennis Tito Group.")

The all-American crew would consist of two people past childbearing age due to the radiation doses they would be exposed to by using current equipment. Technological constraints also dictate the number of people that could go on this mission, said Jane Poynter.

Poynter was one of the first Biosphere 2 crew members and is a co-founder of Paragon Space Development Corporation, which is developing the life-support system for the foundation's Mars mission. The foundation is also in talks with the National Geographic Society about a potential partnership on the mission.

While humans have a long history of setting off into the unknown on our own planet and in the immediate vicinity, space travel beyond low-Earth orbit and the moon-and what it means for the mental well-being of human crews-is a new frontier. ( Read about risk takers in National Geographic magazine.)

"I think these will be bigger challenges than technology challenges," said Jason Kring, a researcher at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida who studies how humans perform in extreme environments.

Feelings of isolation and boredom, the knowledge that Earth is so very far away, and long periods of confinement are some of the mental issues researchers worry about for crew members. ( Learn about humanity's history of space exploration.)

In Earth-orbiting missions, such as to the International Space Station (ISS), astronauts have real time communication with friends, family, and ground teams.

ISS inhabitants can receive visitors and crews can be resupplied with their favorite foods, said Nick Kanas, a psychiatrist and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). (Related: "Life aboard the International Space Station.")

"Now fast forward to Mars -you can't talk to anybody in real time," said Kanas, who has studied psychological issues in astronauts for NASA.

"If you have a fire you have to deal with it yourselves," he said. "You can't evacuate anyone if they develop issues ... You're really isolated."

Isolation was the hardest part of living in Biosphere 2, a self-contained habitat meant to simulate Earth's various environments in the Arizona desert, said Poynter.

"We weren't as prepared as we should have been for being isolated," she said. Some of Biosphere 2's crew members developed depression or mood swings, and psychologists were brought in to help those individuals cope.

But the members toughed out their two-year stints, Poynter said, adding that she will advocate for the Mars crew to get training in how to deal with psychological challenges.

Mission planners will also be talking to NASA and to people who have spent extended periods of time at the ISS about how to plan for such hardship, she said.

Embry-Riddle's Kring and UCSF's Kanas both questioned the wisdom of the proposed two-person Mars crew.

"I think two is a setup for problems," said Kanas. "You can get along with anybody for a month, but you're talking about a year and a half or longer, and it's different."

Kring said that if the teammates got upset with each other, there would be no one to help smooth things over or take up any slack workwise.

There have been instances in the Russian cosmonaut program in which crew members in space got mad at one another and didn't speak for months, he said.

Poynter added that there were team members in Biosphere 2 who didn't speak to each other for 18 months beyond what was essential to keep their habitat running. (Related: "Two Years Under Glass: The First Biosphere 2 Mission.")

Crew members would be able to communicate with people on Earth, but interactions between crews in space and teams on the ground can develop their own set of problems.

Kanas's research has shown that crews in space will sometimes displace negative feelings onto ground teams. That can result in crews feeling like no one on the ground cares about them, he said.

Russian investigators have found that teams in space might also withhold some information from ground personnel, giving support personnel on Earth an incomplete picture of what's happening on the spacecraft, Kanas noted in an article published in 2010 in the Journal of Cosmology.

But experts say that some psychological issues can be avoided or mitigated with proper crew selection and training.

David F. Dinges, a psychology researcher at the University of Pennsylvania Perlman School of Medicine, thinks a two-person crew could work, depending on the people involved.

"It sort of depends on which two people and the nature of the habitat and the nature of what they have to do," he said.

There's no hard-and-fast list of characteristics that make a good crew member, said UCSF's Kanas, who has helped NASA screen astronaut candidates.

In general, good crew members are those who enjoy both working alone on projects and socializing, Kanas said.

This is so crew members can go off and give themselves and their teammates a break from each other, but then come together for meals or to work out a problem.

"You don't want introverts and you don't want extroverts," Kanas said.

Embry-Riddle's Kring adds that crew members should also be comfortable with fluid situations and be able to deal with differences in how others live and work.

Having a sense of humor also helps. When a group of Kring's students entered a Utah facility meant to simulate living and working on Mars for two weeks, individuals with a sense of humor were able to keep the group laughing.

That helped to diffuse tensions that surfaced among a team that, even though they got along very well before they went inside, developed issues within days of starting their simulated mission, Kring said.

It would be ideal if the Inspiration Mars Foundation's two-person crew were an attached couple, said Paragon's Poynter: "It's immeasurably helpful to have someone who you know and who you trust."

That setup would also help address any concerns of a romantic relationship developing between male and female crew members.

Poynter said she would love to go to Mars with her husband, former Biosphere 2 crew member and Paragon co-founder Taber MacCallum. "When we were in the Biosphere, we would sit on the beach," she said, "[and] just imagine ourselves hurtling towards Mars or being on the surface of Mars."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Psychological Challenges of a Manned Mission to Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We all have them-a sibling who "borrows" your clothes without returning them, a co-worker who never puts your stapler back where she found it, a spouse who refuses to pick up his socks. Now imagine being stuck with such a person in a room the size of an RV for 17 months.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a hopes for liftoff for a trip around the moon in 2023. Musk has come out to say that his Mars SpaceX settlement might be possible in 2028.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just last week Elon Musk announced that Japanese entrepreneur and art collector Yusaku Maezawa will be the first SpaceX passenger to travel around the moon, with hopes of liftoff in 2023. Since, Musk has come out to say that his Mars SpaceX settlement might be possible just years later in 2028, Inverse points out.

Musk hopes that SpaceX will become the first human base on Mars. Recent renderings show multiple BFR rockets on the planet alongside roads and other permanent fixtures. The BFR features 31 Raptor engines powered by liquid oxygen and methane to ensure visiting humans can refuel with natural resources and return home. Initially with six vessels, each ship would carry 100 tons of supplies, then serving as homes for humans.

"The idea would be to expand out, start off not just with an outpost, but grow into a larger base, not just like there are in Antarctica, but really a village, a town, growing into a city and then multiple cities on Mars," said Paul Wooster, principal Mars development engineer for SpaceX.

Musk has gone on to point out that his plans for Mars are just the beginning. The BFR is "really intended as an interplanetary transport system that's capable of getting from Earth to anywhere in the solar system as you establish propellant depots along the way," he notes.

For more on Musk's plans for SpaceX in 2028, follow over to Inverse.
In other news, Coke is reportedly in talks to develop cannabis-infused drinks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elon Musk Says Mars SpaceX Base Could Be Possible by 2028

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just last week Elon Musk announced that Japanese entrepreneur and art collector Yusaku Maezawa will be the first SpaceX passenger to travel around the moon, with hopes of liftoff in 2023. Since, Musk has come out to say that his Mars SpaceX settlement might be possible just years later in 2028, Inverse points out.

# data[].attributes.body
This article states that having a crew together for so long will create issues. They ran many tests with different groups and found that no matter what, the stress of the conditions create psychological problems. Scientists are creating technology to detect when a person is becoming stressed or angry by measuring voice tone, heartrate, and brain activity to alert other crew members to stay away for awhile.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Experts in human behavior recognize that isolation and confinement can push even disciplined astronauts to the breaking point. The International Space Station's medical kit contains anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants as well as sedatives and physical restraints, just in case. The psychological stresses on a Mars mission will be far greater, perhaps the greatest that any human traveler has ever faced.

"When you're stuck with people over these long durations, micro-stimuli can become really irritating," says Kim Binsted, a University of Hawaii psychologist who studies the effects of human spaceflight. "Let's say you can't stand the way your crew-mate chews his cereal. Suddenly it goes from 'Eh, I wish he'd close his mouth more' to 'I'm going to stab him.'"

Making a mock Mars on Earth

The possibility of such extreme breakdowns is one of the main reasons why Binsted created a program of realistic Mars-mission mockups called Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation, or HI-SEAS. The mechanical aspects of a Mars mission can be tested with laboratory models or computer simulations, she notes, but the only way to truly understand the psychological challenges is to put real people through the wringer.

Binsted wanted to go beyond NASA's Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), which has run extensive tests on crew isolation for 45 days at a time. Antarctic expeditions and submarine crews produce greater tests of endurance, more akin to what astronauts will encounter on a journey to Mars, but they still typically run no more than six months. "For astronaut-like people, that's too short," Binsted says. "We don't really see group effects until after about six months; that's when the stressors start to come out."

HI-SEAS researchers therefore confine their crews of four to six volunteers inside a 1,200-square-foot habitat on Hawaii's Mauna Loa volcano for up to a full year and monitor what happens. During their stint inside, the mock astronauts get the full Mars treatment: extreme isolation, 30-second showers and time-delayed communications. Spacesuits are also mandatory for any excursions beyond the simulated airlock.

The biggest lesson from HI-SEAS so far is that every crew ends up fighting, although the group dynamics leading to conflict are different every time. "That was a bit disappointing to NASA because they were hoping we could put a bow on it and say, 'As long as you avoid this particular stressor, your crew is going to be fine,'" Binsted says.

Along with that disappointment has come an important insight, however. There is a general recipe for success: having a good match between the crew members' personalities, especially what Binsted calls their "styles of leadership and followership." Some crews operate best with a military-style, top-down command, others with a more democratic arrangement. As long as the team leaders and the rest of the crew are stylistically compatible, though, the missions tend to run smoothly.

Spotting the psychological glitches

Even with insights gleaned from five HI-SEAS missions, unexpected events can still easily disrupt the harmony in the Hawaii habitat. The most recent outing, HI-SEAS VI, ended prematurely in February when a crew member had to be hospitalized after suffering an electrical shock. Crew members got into heated arguments - first about whether to call 911, and then about whether to continue the simulation after the break in isolation. HI-SEAS VI ended up being the first mission to abort.

Lauren Blackwell Landon, a NASA psychologist in Houston, says similar, smaller frictions erupt all the time aboard the ISS, despite the rotating crews and extensive communication with the ground. In one incident (recorded in anonymized astronaut journals), an astronaut described how a routine photo shoot devolved into an acrimonious conflict, writing that "I thought we were going to lose a member of the crew during that one."

On a Mars flight, the dangers and the psychological pressures will be vastly more intense. Since there's no apparent way to prevent stress, Landon and her colleagues are working on ways to spot it and defuse it before it spirals out of control. Some of the approaches are medical: NASA-sponsored researchers are developing systems for monitoring astronauts' brain activity, heart rate and levels of the stress hormone cortisol in their bloodstreams.

A big drawback of invasive monitoring is that it could create its own new set of stresses, or the astronauts might find creative ways to defeat it. "Technologies that invade astronauts' privacy have a weird tendency to 'break' early in the mission, if you know what I mean," Binsted says.

NASA is therefore exploring more subtle approaches. For instance, experimental AI systems could read astronauts' facial expressions as well as the language they use when speaking and writing. In a related approach, Steve Kozlowski, a psychologist at Michigan State University, is testing " sociometric badges " that track astronauts' movements and voices.

The badge system would issue alerts to the crew commander or to mission control if it picks up angry voices, for example, or if some crew members start to steer clear of others. For transparency, the badges would be openly visible, and for privacy they would record tones but not actual words.

Fix now or fix later?

Former astronaut Jay Buckey, now a physician at Dartmouth University, is less concerned with how NASA monitors rising stress levels than what happens next. He has been testing a virtual reality simulator to ease astronauts' feelings of isolation. He is also working on interactive computer games to help them overcome anxiety and depression.

Drugs and therapy are definitely part of the program as well, Binsted says. Astronauts aboard the ISS make regular use of sleep aids and anti-nausea medications and use cognitive-behavioral therapy. Expect those approaches (along with the emergency restraints) to make the leap to Mars.

Binsted is encouraged by NASA's commitment to psychological management, but her single greatest piece of advice is to put any prospective collection of Mars astronauts through a thorough test drive on Earth. If there are any "I'm going to stab him" possibilities lurking within the group psychology, that might be the only way to find out.

"I'd put the crew in Antarctica or in a HI-SEAS habitat for at least six months as a test," she says. "Try them out in an analog before they're sent to space!"

WANT MORE "MAKING OF AN ASTRONAUT" STORIES?

FOLLOW NBC NEWS MACH ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK, AND INSTAGRAM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Going to Mars will involve all sorts of risks. Going bonkers might be the biggest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Experts in human behavior recognize that isolation and confinement can push even disciplined astronauts to the breaking point. The International Space Station's medical kit contains anti-anxiety drugs and antidepressants as well as sedatives and physical restraints, just in case. The psychological stresses on a Mars mission will be far greater, perhaps the greatest that any human traveler has ever faced.

# data[].attributes.body
This article touches on the social issues that would arise from being away from society for so long. Being isolated from Earth for a long time. YOur family, friends, and everyone else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colonising Mars will be as much a challenge of psychology as engineering. Photograph: Denis Scott/Corbis

Since April, thousands of people have applied to take a one-way trip to Mars. Following further stages of selection and training, the plan is for the first four astronauts to lift off in 2022. After a seven-month journey they will settle permanently on the red planet to conduct scientific experiments and do whatever it takes to survive. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be able to watch their lives unfold on reality TV.

The Mars One programme is daring but is it realistic? Nasa is sceptical about a private one-way mission and instead plans to send more rovers followed by a manned return mission sometime in the 2030s. Others have questioned Mars One's business model, technical feasibility and the health risks posed by radiation.

On top of these concerns, Martian colonists will face extreme psychological conditions. Mars One claims to have discussed its plans "with experienced and respected psychologists" but doesn't name them or refer to any supporting evidence. At the same time they have called for applicants who are resilient, adaptable, curious, trusting and creative but without saying why these particular traits are the most important, how they will be measured, or how the standards for selection will be set. Even Professor Raye Kass, who appears to be one of their few advisers on mental health issues, offers little more than anecdotes as evidence for the psychological feasibility of the programme.

Existing research suggests that the colonists will face at least four major psychological challenges. Individually, each of these is serious enough to raise a red flag. In combination, they are a disaster waiting to happen.

Social isolation

The Mars One colonists will be the most isolated humans to have ever lived. Because of their distance from Earth, real time interaction with people back home will be impossible - the shortest delay for sending transmissions will be about 10 minutes. For the rest of their lives they will be able to interact directly with only their fellow colonists, who will increase from three people in the first two years to 23 people after 10 years.

These circumstances will probably cause mental illness in at least some of the colonists. Decades of research shows that prolonged social isolation in astronauts can lead to depression, insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, boredom and emotional instability. Mars One believes that selecting applicants with the right attitude will help prevent such problems. As Kass puts it:

It all starts with attitude. Think of it. When a person finds herself, or himself, on Mars, with no way of being able to come home, and potentially questioning the decision that they have made, what is going to ground them in the choice they have made?

But we know that even the most highly trained astronauts suffer the side effects of isolation - and these are people who know they will be coming home, and who have years (sometimes decades) more experience than the Mars One crew will have. Professor Nick Kanas, a Nasa-funded expert in the psychological effects of space exploration, says that when Earth is out of view for an extended time, "crewmember psychology may result in increased feelings of isolation, homesickness, dysphoria, or even suicidal or psychotic thinking."

The notion that "attitude" will somehow inoculate the colonists against these conditions is at best naive, at worst irresponsible. How will the Mars One programme react when a colonist who was deemed psychologically fit suffers a major breakdown after years of isolation, with no way to get home? Who will be responsible then?

Confinement

A life on Mars will be a life indoors. The atmosphere is unbreathable and the global temperature averages -60C. From the moment they land, the colonists will spend at least 80% of their time within units that offer about 50 square metres per person - that's the size of two average-sized bedrooms. Consider a normal day in your own life and the variety of environments you find yourself moving between, as well as the different sensory experiences you take for granted. Compared with Earth, the colonists will live out their entire lives with a fraction of this exposure.

Not surprisingly, long-term confinement in a small space is associated with many of the same problems triggered by social isolation: depression, anxiety and cognitive impairment, among other symptoms. Animal studies show that captivity can stunt the normal development of young primates, leading to abnormally high fear and reduced exploration behaviours. What does this say about the side effects for children being born and raised in such an environment?

Loss of privacy

While the colonists go about their business, Earth will be watching them 24-7. We already know that surveillance can cause stress, fatigue, depression and anxiety, which will add even more weight to an already extreme mental health burden. The Mars One team has made no public comment on the effects of combining the risk factors of social isolation and confinement with surveillance, but we do know that the programme depends on the money raised by reality TV contracts. So presumably the show must go on.

What happens when the colonists get fed up with the interplanetary Truman Show and turn the cameras off? Will Mars One be forced to abandon them?

Lack of mental health services

Perhaps the most worrying concern is that the colonists won't have real-time access to mental health services such as counselling and psychotherapy. Recent studies have found that simulated psychotherapy via an automated computer programme called Deprexis can yield small-to-moderate benefits in depression, but this approach is only about 50% as effective as normal psychotherapy. And given that the colonists are likely to suffer from a wider range of psychological problems than depression, automated mental health interventions simply won't cut it.

Where does all this leave us? Mars One may be audacious and media-savvy but it is built on a psychological vacuum. In addition to the issues raised here, the planners have given no visible consideration to how they will address the lack of modern medicine, sexual relationships, pregnancy, raising children, ageing and death. And that's not even considering the public trauma on Earth that would follow a televised tragedy on Mars.

Mars One is either ignoring the psychological consequences of colonisation or failing to disclose them. Either way, if their plan goes ahead - and for the sake of the colonists we might hope that it doesn't - then Nasa's manned mission in the 2030s may well be dubbed Mars Rescue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars One: The psychology of isolation, confinement and 24-hour Big Brother | Chris Chambers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since April, thousands of people have applied to take a one-way trip to Mars. Following further stages of selection and training, the plan is for the first four astronauts to lift off in 2022. After a seven-month journey they will settle permanently on the red planet to conduct scientific experiments and do whatever it takes to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
This article describes the different psychological issues that may arise during the trip to Mars, as well as during the colonization of Mars. One program that helps aid the mental health of astronauts is called MiniCog. MiniCog is a 15 minute assessment of the space explorers' and ground control workers' mental states which helps raise a red flag and indicates whether the person should take a nap or drink a cup of coffee before performing any more tasks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national aeronautics and space administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Psychologists craft systems to lessen the mental strains astronauts might face 100 million miles away from earth.

# data[].attributes.body
This article tells of some of the various ethical questions that would have to be answered before man's inevitable trips to Mars. The questions include "If Mars is already sterile, why have we not already gone?" It concludes with the author's prediction. He thinks that the first person to go to Mars will be "some dude in his basement who designs a rocket and goes by himself".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

The race to colonize Mars is underway, meaning many of us may witness humankind setting foot on the red planet before we die.

But one astronomy professor thinks we should slow down and figure out if there is life on Earth's planetary neighbor before our exploration destroys it.

"If there's any kind of active biology on Mars - no matter how primitive - the first step is we have to find it and understand it," said David Weintraub, who teaches at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

"Then, we could try to make enlightened decisions about what the right thing is for us to do or not to do."

More: How far into deep space will Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster actually go?

More: Blue Origin books New Glenn rocket launch contracts

He makes the case to tap the brakes and investigate further as NASA and billionaire-backed ventures like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin make ambitious plans to race ahead.

David A. Weintraub, Professor of Astronomy in the Dept. of Physics & Astronomy. (Vanderbilt University / Steve Green) (Photo: Photo by Steve Green/Vanderbilt University)

Weintraub wrote about the ethical quandaries that lay in front of us in his newly released book " Life on Mars: What to Know Before We Go." In it, he explains the history of our long fascination with the fourth planet in our solar system and the search for Martians.

Knowing life exists before going

Like the race to the moon in the last century, the thought of colonizing Mars in our lifetimes is exciting, Weintraub said. But we are blinded by the thrill of it and forget to ask the necessary moral questions and weigh the consequences of landing on the planet before we know life exists, he said.

"I'm hoping we at least have a conversation about that before it's too late," Weintraub said.

For centuries, humans have studied our close neighbor. Philosophical ideas and pop culture have fueled our fascination, too. But Weintraub argues that humans may have misled themselves for hundreds of years into thinking life exists on Mars because we assume the planet is more Earth-like than it really is.

He thinks the possibility of life on the red planet is small, but it is not zero. If it does exist, life is expected to be microscopic. But finding life on Mars would be a huge discovery regardless of size.

"The knowledge would be so valuable in understanding ourselves and where we come from and about the possibility of life in the universe beyond the Earth and Mars," Weintraub said. "I think we ought to try to get that information if it exists before it's no longer available."

If it's sterile, 'why not go?'

Slowing down the space race offers more time to learn, investigate and explore from afar whether life exists, Weintraub said.

If we go before we know, humans could contaminate Mars, Weintraub said. Colonizing the planet and altering its climate and environment to make it habitable for humans may destroy what life exists without us knowing it, he said.

"If Mars is sterile, then why not go?" Weintraub said. "We want to go. It's right there."

Regardless of his position, Weintraub thinks human footprints will be on Mars by the close of the 21st century. Even if we were to find life on the planet and spacefaring nations were to put a Mars travel ban in place, someone will find a way because humans have an innate drive to explore, he said.

"My bet is that somebody in their basement will build a rocket and go to Mars on their own," Weintraub said.

Reach Holly Meyer at hmeyer@tennessean.com or 615-259-8241 and on Twitter @HollyAMeyer.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2018/05/14/race-colonize-mars-but-should-we-go-astronomy-professor-david-weintraub-raises-questions/536153002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The race to colonize Mars is on - but should we go? An astronomy professor raises ethical questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE The race to colonize Mars is underway, meaning many of us may witness humankind setting foot on the red planet before we die. But one astronomy professor thinks we should slow down and figure out if there is life on Earth's planetary neighbor before our exploration destroys it.

# data[].attributes.body
This article suggests that in order for humans to thrive on Mars, we may have to take measures to increase our senses and minds. There is no way to simulate what life would be like on Mars, so there could be issues that arise that we had not been originally looking for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2016, two astronauts finished nearly a year of work on the International Space Station. NASA's Scott Kelly and Russia's Mikhail Kornienko were studied closely for changes in their physical and psychological health.

NASA touts the mission as part of its "Journey to Mars", in which it hopes to send humans to the Red Planet by the 2030s. But a recent paper published in the journal Space Policy argues that there are so many aspects to a Martian colony that it is all but impossible to simulate the parameters on Earth.

"We can not simulate the same physical and environmental conditions to reconstruct the Martian environment, I mean such traits like Martian microgravitation or radiation exposure," Konrad Szocik, a cognitive scientist at the University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Poland and lead author of the paper, said in an e-mail. "Consequently, we cannot predict physical and biological effects of humans living on Mars."

He argues that "an awareness of the one-way journey and all possible dangers" cannot be simulated on the ISS, or even in Antarctica, one of the most remote places on Earth and a frequently cited zone in space analog studies. Szocik argues that people in Antarctica are not reliant on artificial life support to the degree that astronauts are.

RELATED: Martian Meteorites Could Reveal Wetter Past on the Red Planet Than Thought

Szocik suggest individuals acclimatized to living in harsh conditions would be best suited for exploration of Mars. So that's not to say that the space station or Antarctica wouldn't be useful locations for training. But, he argues, it may be necessary to go a step further - modify people's bodies and minds ahead of journeying to Mars.

He suggests possibly electronically enhancing the human senses or prescribing medication that might help diminish emotional reactions in a moment a crisis. Of course, how exactly to do this still lies mostly in science fiction.

Szocik says he is greatly concerned with how a Martian colony would function. While most discussions of colonies focus on the technological or financial challenges of constructing and maintaining it, there has been less study of the social aspects of putting people within a Martian colony.

"A human being is a social animal and he lives in a group," he said. "Group problems affect many challenges and troubles, and we should consider now how we can prevent such typical human problems like conflicts, wars, cheating, etc."

Szocik is also concerned about reproduction on Mars, which not only needs a technological and medical support system, but a large enough colony to avoid the risk of inbreeding. He suggests a population of at least 500 adults on the surface. Not only that, but medical officials would should consider how to reduce the likely mortality rate from disease, possible technological failures, and radiation from the Martian environment, among other factors, he said.

Szocik's previously written about how religion would function on Mars and how the human psyche might be impacted. first foray into predicting human behavior on Mars.

WATCH: Pluto Could Be Made A Planet Again, Along With 102 Other Celestial Bodies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colonizing Mars Might Require Humans to Radically Alter Their Bodies and Minds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016, two astronauts finished nearly a year of work on the International Space Station. NASA's Scott Kelly and Russia's Mikhail Kornienko were studied closely for changes in their physical and psychological health. NASA touts the mission as part of its "Journey to Mars", in which it hopes to send humans to the Red Planet by the 2030s.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the different effects that going to Mars would have on your body. It groups everything into five categories: Gravity fields, isolation/confinement, hostile/closed environments, space radiation, and distance from Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more than 50 years, NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) has studied what happens to the human body in space. Researchers are using what they learn to design procedures, devices, and strategies to keep astronauts safe and healthy throughout their missions.

NASA engineers use the lessons learned to better design spacecraft and improve the fit and functions of spacesuits. The research also aids in the development and assessment of medical standards, physical fitness programs and standards, physiological and psychological adaptation training, sensorimotor training, and nutritional health protocols.

Understanding the effects of spaceflight on humans is essential as astronauts move from the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit to deep space destinations on and around the Moon, and beyond. With the Artemis program, NASA will land the first woman and next man on the Moon using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before, gathering new data while keeping astronauts healthy and safe.

NASA is particularly interested in investigating how the body reacts to long-duration spaceflight as the agency plans for extended missions on the Moon and Mars. Scott Kelly and Christina Koch were the first American astronauts to spend nearly one year in space onboard the space station, twice the previous average. Scott, Christina, and seven other astronauts have spent more than 200 days in space during a single spaceflight.

In addition to spending almost a year in space, Scott was involved in the unique Twins Study. Scott participated in several biomedical studies onboard the space station while his identical twin brother, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, stayed on Earth as a control subject, someone who provides a basis of comparison.

The study provided valuable data about what happened to Scott, physiologically and psychologically, as compared to his brother Mark. Their contribution to science helped generate data that researchers will use for decades to come.

NASA is planning more dedicated extended-duration research on the space station. The studies are expected to shed light on how the body adapts to living in the spaceflight environment for various longer time periods, which will be pivotal for future deep space missions.

What exactly happens to the body in space and what are the risks? Are the risks the same for astronauts who spend six months on the space station versus those who may be away on a Mars mission for years?

The simple answer is: No. NASA is researching risks for Mars missions which are grouped into five human spaceflight hazards related to the stressors they place on the body. These can be summarized with the acronym " RIDGE," short for Space Radiation, Isolation and Confinement, Distance from Earth, Gravity fields, and Hostile/Closed Environments.

Space Radiation

On Earth, we are shielded by the planet's magnetic field and atmosphere from the majority of particles that make up the space radiation environment. Even so, everyone on Earth is exposed to low levels of radiation every day, from the food we eat to the air we breathe.

In space, astronauts are exposed to varied and increased levels of radiation that are different from those on Earth. Three major sources contribute to the space radiation environment: particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, solar energetic particles from the Sun, and galactic cosmic rays.

A big challenge in reducing the risks of radiation exposure is that some space radiation particles (especially galactic cosmic rays) are difficult to shield against. Exposure to increased radiation can be associated with both short- and long-term health consequences, depending on how much total radiation astronauts experience and the time frame in which they experience that exposure.

Increased risk of cancer and degenerative diseases, such as heart disease and cataracts, have been observed in human populations exposed to radiation on Earth. Health risks for astronauts from radiation exposure in space are mainly driven by long-term impacts.

Additionally, animal and cellular research indicate that the type of radiation in the space environment has a larger impact on health outcomes compared to the radiation experienced on Earth. Not only will astronauts be exposed to more radiation in space than on Earth, but the radiation they are exposed to could pose increased risks.

The Key: The current strategy to reduce the health risks of space radiation exposure is to implement shielding, radiation monitoring, and specific operational procedures. Compared to typical six-month space station missions, later Moon and Mars missions will be much longer on average. Consequently, the total amount of radiation experienced and associated health risks may increase.

NASA is developing new radiation detectors to monitor and characterize the radiation environment, which will provide better estimates of the dose and type of radiation to which the crews are exposed. Scientists and engineers are optimizing and implementing operational procedures that use available vehicle stowage and materials to reduce radiation exposure effectively.

To investigate the health risks of space radiation exposure beyond low-Earth orbit, NASA supports research that analyzes the biological effects of simulated cosmic rays at ground-based research facilities. Research at these facilities helps NASA understand and reduce the risk of space radiation, ensure proper measurement of the doses that astronauts receive on the space station and in future spacecraft, and develop advanced materials that improve radiation shielding for future missions.

Studies of radiation-exposed human cohorts are also being conducted to estimate the health risks in populations relevant to astronauts.

Isolation and Confinement

Expedition crews selected for a stay onboard the space station are carefully chosen, trained, and supported to ensure they will be able to work effectively as a team for the duration of their six to 12-month missions. Crews for a Moon or Mars mission will undergo even more careful assessment, selection, and preparation since they will travel farther and potentially for longer than previous humans in an isolated and confined environment, with only a few other people. Additionally, crews will likely be international and multi-cultural, making cross-cultural sensitivity and team dynamics paramount to mission success.

Ensuring astronauts get quality sleep is also important; otherwise, their internal biological clocks, or circadian rhythm, might be altered by factors like different dark and light cycles, a small and noisy environment, the stress of prolonged isolation and confinement, and a 37-minute extended day on Mars.

It is important to prepare for the fatigue astronauts may experience during spaceflight, given that there will be times with heavy workloads and shifting schedules. To prevent crew boredom, NASA considers the kinds of activities in which the astronauts will participate during a multi-year round trip to Mars.

Communication and understanding among crew members are vital to the success of the mission, and changes in morale and motivation are possible as the mission unfolds. This may relate to reduced stimulation, the longing for loved ones, or feeling unable to assist with family emergencies back on Earth, regardless of how long the mission lasts.

Using spaceflight analogs on Earth, NASA's research has revealed that both the duration and type of confined and isolated experience are important to consider. The more restricted the space, and the less contact with people outside the environment, the more likely humans are to develop behavioral or cognitive conditions or psychiatric disorders.

The Key: NASA has been studying people in isolated and confined environments for years, and has developed methods and technologies to counteract possible problems.

NASA scientists are using devices, such as actigraphy, that help assess and improve sleep and alertness by recording how much people move and how much ambient light is around them. New lighting, spurred by the development of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) technology, is used on the space station to help align astronaut's circadian rhythms and to improve sleep, alertness, and performance.

A 10-minute self-test of vigilance and attention assesses the effect of fatigue on performance. Astronauts write in journals as a safe place to vent frustrations and provide researchers a tool to study behavioral issues that are on the minds of crew members who are living and working in isolation and confinement.

Researchers are also looking into using virtual reality to simulate relaxing environments to help improve the mood of crews in isolation. Engaging in relevant, meaningful activities, including learning a language or learning new medical skills, could help ward off depression and boost morale. Crews may even tend to a space garden, which could have positive behavioral health benefits in addition to providing a fresh source of food and helping to purify the air.

Researchers are using Earth-based analogs to investigate how muchprivacy and living space will be needed on longer missions where crew members will be restricted in a relatively small spacecraft together. NASA is also determining strategies to formulate the best crew by studying individual and team attributes, composition, and dynamics.

Distance from Earth

The space station orbits 240 miles above Earth. The Moon is 1,000 times farther from Earth than the space station. In contrast, Mars is on average 140 million miles from Earth. With a communication delay of up to 20 minutes one-way while on Mars, astronauts must be able to solve problems and identify solutions as a team without help from NASA's mission control.

The types of food and medicine to be packed for a multi-year trip without access to a grocery store or pharmacy are also important to consider. Unlike space station crews, which regularly receive supplies from cargo flights from Earth, astronauts going to Mars will have to bring all of the food, equipment, and medical supplies they need.

The Key: NASA is using its human spaceflight experience on the space station to figure out what types of medical events happen in space over time and what types of skills, procedures, equipment, and supplies are needed so that they will have a good idea of what to pack for future missions to the Moon and Mars.

Space station astronauts already receive medical training before and during space missions that teach them how to respond to health problems as they arise. For example, astronauts learn how to use onboard space station equipment to produce an intravenous (IV) solution from purified water, which can be used for medical administration.

Crew members also perform ultrasound scans on each other to monitor organ health. If one crew member becomes sick during the mission, crews are ready to perform laboratory testing to help make the right diagnosis and guide treatment.

NASA is working on developing a medical data architecture for spacecraft that enables the capabilities of clinical decision support tools, which could use artificial intelligence and machine learning to further help diagnose and treat various illnesses. Researchers are also looking into the role that virtual assistants could play to help crews identify and respond to spaceflight anomalies quickly for more distant missions.

Additionally, the agency is studying and improving food formulation, processing, packaging, and preservation systems to ensure the nutrients remain stable and the food remains acceptable for years. Space-resilient medications and packaging systems that preserve the integrity of pharmaceuticals for long-duration missions are another significant part of NASA's research.

Gravity Fields

Astronauts will encounter three different gravity fields on a Mars mission. On the six-month trek between the planets, crews will be weightless. While living and working on Mars, crews will be in approximately one-third of Earth's gravity. Finally upon returning home, crews will have to readapt to Earth's gravity.

Transitioning from one gravity field to another is trickier than it sounds. It affects spatial orientation, head-eye and hand-eye coordination, balance, and locomotion, with some crew members experiencing space motion sickness.

Landing a spacecraft on Mars could be challenging as astronauts adjust to the gravity field of another celestial body. When shifting from weightlessness to gravity, astronauts may experience post-flight orthostatic intolerance where they are unable to maintain their blood pressure when standing up, which can lead to lightheadedness and fainting.

NASA has learned that without Earth's gravity affecting the human body, weight-bearing bones lose on average 1% to 1.5% of mineral density per month during spaceflight. After returning to Earth, bone loss might not be completely corrected by rehabilitation; however, their risk for fracture is not higher. Without the proper diet and exercise routine, astronauts also lose muscle mass in microgravity faster than they would on Earth.

Moreover, the fluids in the body shift upward to the head in microgravity, which may put pressure on the eyes and cause vision problems. If preventive or countermeasures are not implemented, crews may experience an increased risk of developing kidney stones due to dehydration and increased excretion of calcium from their bones.

The Key: By analyzing how the body changes in weightlessness and after returning to Earth's gravity, NASA is developing protective measures against these changes for a Mars mission.

Functional task testing is in place to help detect and improve balance control after landing on a gravitational surface. Fine motor skill testing is done to detect any changes in the ability of astronauts to interact with computer-based devices.

Distribution of the fluids in the body is closely monitored to help evaluate any connection to changes in vision. Compression cuffs worn on the thighs help keep the blood in the lower extremities to counteract those fluid shifts. A lower-body negative pressure device could help draw fluids from the head into the legs as well.

Back pain, which some astronauts have reported experiencing during spaceflight, is monitored by obtaining spinal ultrasounds. Muscle size and bone density are assessed for deterioration using MRI and high-resolution imaging techniques, before and after flight. Crew members perform periodic fitness self-evaluations to help researchers better understand the decline in heart function that can occur during spaceflight.

Medicines that NASA is studying, such as potassium citrate, may help combat the physiological change that could increase the risk of developing kidney stones. Bisphosphonate medications have been shown in NASA studies to be effective in preventing bone loss.

NASA has also designed an efficient way to collect and measure how much urine a crew member produces in space, which is essential to human research since it reveals key information about a person's health. For example, researchers can analyze different levels of certain substances in an astronaut's urine to determine whether they are at risk of developing a kidney stone in space, and make modifications to the diet, exercise routine, and water intake as preventive measures.

Aerobic and resistive exercise has been shown to keep the heart healthy, bones and muscles strong, the mind alert, as well as maintain a more positive outlook, and may even help with balance and coordination. Software-generated workout partners could be used to help motivate astronauts to exercise regularly for longer space missions. NASA has even completed a joint Earth-based bed rest study to determine whether centrifuge artificial gravity may be an effective way to counter the physiological effects of weightlessness.

Hostile/Closed Environments

NASA has learned that the ecosystem inside the spacecraft plays a big role in everyday astronaut life in space. Microbes can change characteristics in space, and micro-organisms that naturally live on the human body are transferred more easily from person to person in closed habitats, such as the space station. Stress hormone levels are elevated and the immune system is altered, which could lead to increased susceptibility to allergies or other illnesses.

Earth-based analogs do not perfectly simulate the spaceflight environment, making them insufficient for studying on the ground how human immune systems react in space. However, NASA-funded Antarctic analog studies could provide insight into how certain spaceflight stressors may affect the human immune system. What is known is that spaceflight changes the immune system, although crews do not tend to get sick upon returning to Earth. Even though astronauts' acquired immunity is intact, more research is needed into whether spaceflight induced altered immunity may lead to autoimmune issues, in which the immune system mistakenly attacks the healthy cells, organs, and tissues present in the body.

Beyond the effects of the environment on the immune system, every inch and detail of living and working quarters must be carefully thought-out and designed. No one wants their house to be too hot, too cold, cramped, crowded, loud, or not well lit, and no one would enjoy working and living in such a habitat in space either.

The Key: NASA is using technology to monitor the air quality of the space station to ensure the atmosphere is safe to breathe and not contaminated with gases, such as formaldehyde, ammonia, and carbon monoxide. Thermal Control Systems function to maintain temperatures of the space station and keep astronauts comfortable.

Blood and saliva samples are analyzed to identify changes in the immune system and the reactivation of latent viruses during spaceflight. NASA uses advanced molecular techniques to evaluate the risk of microbes that may cause illness for crew members. Various parts of the body and the space station are swabbed regularly for analysis of the microbial population that inhabits the environment. Crews change out air filters, clean surfaces, and treat the water to prevent illnesses that may result from the accumulation of contaminants.

Astronauts are advised to get a flu shot to boost their immunity and are quarantined before their missions to avoid catching any sort of illness before launch. During the Twins Study and One-Year Mission, Scott Kelly administered a flu vaccine to himself while his brother received his on Earth. The immunization proved to work as well in space as it does on Earth, which is a good finding for longer missions to the Moon and Mars.

Living quarters and work environments are carefully planned and evaluated to ensure that designs balance comfort and efficiency. Lighting onboard the space station is similar to what would be experienced naturally on Earth, thanks to the new LED lighting system.

NASA is taking action on all of these risks and working to solve the challenges of human spaceflight with some of the most brilliant minds in their fields. The results garnered from laboratories, ground analogs, and space station missions will provide more insight into these adaptations and present a stepping stone for longer missions.

On upcoming Artemis missions to lunar orbit and the surface of the Moon, even more data will be collected as this work continues. On future longer duration missions to the Moon and Mars, astronauts will benefit from years of research that will ensure they will be able not just to survive, but thrive on their spacefaring missions.

Click here for an infographic summarizing the risks of human spaceflight and the safeguards against them.
_______
NASA's Human Research Program, or HRP, pursues the best methods and technologies to support safe, productive human space travel. Through science conducted in laboratories, ground-based analogs, and the International Space Station, HRP scrutinizes how spaceflight affects human bodies and behaviors. Such research drives HRP's quest to innovate ways that keep astronauts healthy and mission-ready as space travel expands to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
For a 508 Compliant PDF of this post, follow this link.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more than 50 years, NASA's Human Research Program has studied what happens to the human body in space.

# data[].attributes.body
When we get to the era of Mars colonization, how will we police and regulate ourselves? This article portrays some of the possibilities of law enforcement and diplomacy in a mar colony. It also brings up the responsibility of countries and the duty of mankind to preserve it's colony.

# data[].attributes.headline
Psychological Issues During an Expedition to Mars

# data[].attributes.subject
Psychological Issues During an Expedition to Mars

# data[].attributes.body
Kendra Roberts
Due to cultural differences, some people will struggle with having different expectation of people than others. Also, being so far away from everything you know is a difficult thing for people to adjust to.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Lauren Blackwell Landon stresses the importance of not only finding a strong and mentally stable team, but a team that is able to work well together. The communication lag will cause the crew members to make decisions without the help of mission control on Earth, so coming to an agreement with the crew members is critical.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new paper published by Lauren Blackwell Landon in a special issue of American Psychologist covered the psychological issues and importance of teamwork that is associated with space missions.

Started in 1946, American Psychologist Journal is the official scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It is a peer-reviewed magazine that gets published nine times each year. All content published in made available to all the public and psychologists.

According to Landon, besides technology, psychological dynamics plays a vital role in space-related missions, confined into a little space with a handful of people, millions of miles away from their home planet can take its toll on strongest of individuals. All space programs are full of risks and uncertainties, if something goes wrong, there is no possible way to receive help on time.

"Teamwork and collaboration are critical components of all space flights and will be even more important for astronauts during long-duration missions, such as to Mars. The astronauts will be months away from home, confined to a vehicle no larger than a mid-sized RV for two to three years and there will be an up to 45-minute lag on communications to and from Earth," said Lauren Blackwell Landon, PhD, lead author of "Teamwork and Collaboration in Long-Duration Space Missions: Going to Extremes."

For sending people on Mars, NASA has to start a psychology program that covers all the challenges for such missions. At present, psychological research is not getting the required attention at NASA, although each individual NASA astronaut's physical and mental profiling is carried out at an advanced level, not much consideration has been taken about teamwork psychology. As an individual, an astronaut may seem like an ideal candidate but the situation is very different when it comes to teamwork. NASA should pay more attention to a team focused psychology programs so the best team can be assembled for their long duration outer space missions.

Astronauts need to be very emotionally stable, conscious and adaptable individuals; they have to be very resilient and good communicators who can keep calm even during very tense situations.

"Successfully negotiating conflict, planning together as a team, making decisions as a team and practicing shared leadership should receive extensive attention long before a team launches on a space mission," said Landon.

Due to the long intervals in the duration of communication between Mars and Earth, it would be next to impossible to get instructions and help from the Mission Control on earth in real time. The team will have to autonomously do most of the tasks; any conflict of opinion among team members can be fatal to the whole mission.

So, NASA should be working on team specific psychological programs that cover all points related to trust building, defining goals, communication standards and conflict resolution. The research also covered the requirement of using technology for physical health monitoring of all individuals who go on such missions; health issues can adversely affect a person's ability to carry out their assigned tasks, even resulting in emotional outbursts in many cases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA needs Special Psychological Program to Train Astronauts for Mars Mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new paper published by Lauren Blackwell Landon in a special issue of American Psychologist covered the psychological issues and importance of teamwork that is associated with space missions. Started in 1946, American Psychologist Journal is the official scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association.

# data[].attributes.body
Former Astronaut Scott Kelly, who has spent the most amount of time in space, is helping NASA understand the psychological stress caused by space. This is important as the trip to Mars goes through space and is a long trip.
https://prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/this-is-your-brain-on-mars-what-space-travel-does-to-our-psychology

# data[].attributes.body
This article reflects on the impact that living in a socially isolated community has on health and well-being. The participants -six groups from Croatian islands- were measured in their physical, social, and mental health. The results indicated that the average physical health of a member of these communities was above that of a person in society, but their social skills and mental health were much worse. This study is one in an essential genre to figuring out how to maintain and improve the well-being of colonists on Mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Aim

To explore differences in self-perceived health as an indicator of health status and mortality, in six isolated populations from Croatian islands and to compare the results with control from general Croatian population obtained through the National Health Survey.

Method

Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36). The questionnaire was administered to 600 participants, inhabitants of 6 villages: Rab, Barbat, Lopar, and Supetarska Draga on island Rab, and Komiža and Vis, on island Vis, and to control group of 600 participants from the general Croatian population matched by age and gender to islanders.

Results

The islanders scored higher than controls on 3 out of 8 health dimensions, physical functioning (80.1 ± 22.4 vs 73.2 ± 24.8, P<0.001), vitality (61.0±20.3 vs 55.7 ± 19.9, P<0.001), and pain (70.1 ± 28.0 vs 65.9 ± 26.5, P = 0.008). Social functioning of islanders was significantly lower than in control group (73.4 ± 18.6 vs 77.6 ± 23.4, P = 0.001). There was also a significant variation in health status among the islanders according to the isolation level, with the largest differences in general health perception and mental health. High isolation group reported the lowest score of all groups on mental health ( P = 0.018), physical functioning ( P = 0.045), general health ( P = 0.001), and vitality dimension ( P  = 0.027).

Conclusion

Inhabitants of Croatian islands in general showed better health-related functioning on the most of the health dimensions than general population. Islanders scored lower than controls only on social functioning which can be explained by their geographical isolation and small population. Low mental health score of islanders in the high isolation group should be taken in account in planning health services for islands.

Research dealing with environmental and cultural issues has mainly been focused on urban life. Little attention has so far been paid to the quality of life parameters on remote or geographically isolated areas such as islands, where lifestyle is affected mostly by geographical conditions.

There are two important characteristics of the lifestyle in remote islands or geographically isolated communities: a) medical health care is usually insufficient and b) there are few opportunities for personal growth of inhabitants due to limited interaction with new stimuli ( 1). Geographical environment and social and health needs of the island population require a specific type of health care, the implementation of which demands investment of considerably larger financial resources. On the other hand, islands and isolated areas are places with many positive lifestyle aspects, such as clean and healthy environment (no smoke or noise, proximity to the sea or the mountains), and less hassle and stress in life (easier transportation, more free time, less competition, well known social environment). The inhabitants of Dalmatian islands represent an exceptional example of rare, genetically isolated groups residing in the contemporary Europe ( 2). The geographical specificity induced development of a number of isolated groups, each exhibiting specific social and health-related phenomenon. As a direct result of isolation, several genetic disorders have emerged ( 3- 7). Isolate island populations provide a valuable resource for health research. They not only allow investigations that improve our understanding of unique and rare genetic disorders, but can also contribute to a better understanding of common diseases that are important contributors to the burden of disease globally. An example is the research in the population of Sardinia, which showed that 12% of the inhabitants carry beta thalassemia-predisposing mutations in the beta globin gene; it was subsequently shown that beta thalassemia carriers have 25% lower plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) than the non-carriers ( 8). In contrast to various anthropological and genetic analyses, there have been little or no investigations of the health-related quality of life in such populations ( 9).

Health-related quality of life refers to the personal sense of physical and mental health and the ability to react to factors in the physical and social environments. It is more subjective than life expectancy and therefore is more difficult to measure. A self-administered health status questionnaire gives us subjective assessments of health for both individual persons and entire communities. These measures capture individuals' subjective assessment of their health through examining various health domains, such as physical, psychological and role function. In both clinical and public health settings, subjective perceptions of health have often greater saliency for functioning and survival than do physiologic and clinical assessments. Global assessments, in which a person rates his or her health as "poor," "fair," "good," "very good," or "excellent," can serve as reliable indicators of one's perceived health ( 10). Subjective measures of health status have been advocated as a useful proxy for objective measures. In some studies the question about global self rated health has been found to be a powerful predictor of the mortality within a targeted population group ( 11). Since self-perceived health represents an important indicator of health status and morbidity, the aim of this study was to explore differences in self-perceived health in 6 isolated communities on Croatian islands. The results were compared with Croatian data from National Health Survey 2003 ( 12). According to the characteristics of Croatian island population, it is to be expected that the specificity of isolated populations will be reflected in the self-perceived physical and mental health as well in the indicators of social functioning of individuals.

Subjects and Methods

Assessment of health-related quality of life of islanders was a part of the "1001 Dalmatians" research program. Data collection was performed during 2002 and 2003 by a team of researchers from the Andrija Štampar School of Public Health, Zagreb University School of Medicine, and the Institute for Anthropological Research in Zagreb, Croatia.

The study sample was a random sample of 100 inhabitants from 6 villages (Rab, Banjol, Lopar, Supetarska Draga, Komiža, Vis) located on two Croatian islands (Rab and Vis). Sampling was based on computerized randomization of the most complete and accessible population registries in each village. A detailed description of the sampling strategy, field research methods, data collection, storage, and compliance to ethical guidelines can be found elsewhere ( 13). The two islands were chosen because one is in the proximity of the mainland and less isolated (Rab), while the other one is far from the mainland and very isolated (Vis). The settlements were chosen so that: 2 were relatively open to immigrants (Rab and Banjol), 2 showed intermediate level of isolation (Supetarska Draga, Vis), and 2 were extremely isolated (Lopar and Komiža).

Each of the 600 islanders (mean age 55 years, standard deviation 15) were then matched to an appropriate control of the same age and gender. The controls were drafted from the Croatian National Health Survey, which included approximately 10 000 examinees from the whole Croatia. Health-related quality of life measurements used in this survey were described in detail elsewhere ( 12). Drafting of controls from the large sample was performed in the following way: randomized code numbers were assigned to all examinees from the National Health Survey, and then the entire database was ranked according to these code numbers. The first examinees by rank that matched islanders by age and gender were assigned to the control group. Overall, 1200 participants were included in this study (596 men and 604 women).

Health-related quality of life was measured with the Short Form Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) ( 14). The SF-36 was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, general population surveys, and health status surveys of population groups, subgroups, and individuals. To date, SF-36 has been used to investigate population differences, burden of chronic disease, and the effect of medical treatment on general health status ( 15, 16). The SF-36 includes one multi-item scale that assesses eight health status dimensions: 1) Physical functioning: limitations in physical activities because of health problems; 2) Social functioning: limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems; 3) Role physical: limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems; 4) Pain: bodily pain; 5) Mental health: general mental health (psychological distress and well-being); 6) Role emotional: limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems; 7) Vitality: feeling of energy and fatigue; and 8) General health: general health perceptions. For each of the eight dimensions item scores were recoded, summed up, and transformed using a scoring algorithm into a scale ranging from 0 (poor health) to 100 percent (excellent health) ( 14). Interpretation of SF-36 questionnaire was based on the mean scores of the examinees in each population or a subgroup. The scales are independent of each other, which implies that the mean scores cannot be compared across scales. Islanders' health-related quality of life was presented as the mean scores on 8 health status dimensions, and graphically as health profiles. The survey was constructed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older. In this research, SF-36 was administrated face-to-face by trained interviewers (physicians).

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed descriptively and results for SF-36 health status dimensions were presented as means ± standard deviations. Independent sample t test was used to test the difference between the group of examinees from Croatian islands and control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the 3 groups of islanders defined by the isolation level, followed by post-hoc Scheffe test and Dunnett C tests (when variance was unequal). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for Social Science, version 10.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

In general, islanders scored higher than Croatian general population on 3 of the 8 health status dimensions () physical functioning ( t = 5.044; df = 1198; P<0.01), vitality ( t = 4.542; df = 1198; P<0.010), and pain dimension ( t = 2.665; df = 1198; P = 0.008). The only dimension where islanders scored lower than the control group was social functioning, where islanders reported significantly lower functioning ( t = -3.423; df = 1198; P  = 0.001).

Table 1

In the next step of analysis, 6 island communities were grouped according to the level of isolation in three groups: low isolation (Rab and Banjol), medium (Vis and Supetarska Draga), and high level of isolation (Komiža and Lopar). Health profiles for those three groups were presented in comparison to health profile of control group (). High isolation group reported the lowest score of all groups on mental health (F = 4.038; df = 2, 597; P = 0.018), physical functioning (F = 3.126; df = 2, 579; P = 0.045), general health perception (F = 6581; df = 2, 597; P = 0.001), and vitality dimension (F = 3.619; df = 2597; P  = 0.027) ().

Table 2

Post-hoc multiple comparisons showed that group with high isolation had significantly lower score on vitality dimension but the difference was significant only in comparison with medium isolation group ( P = 0.028). In general health dimension, high isolation group (lowest score) and low isolation group were significantly different from medium isolation group (the highest score) ( P = 0.002 and P = 0.034, respectively). On mental health dimension, the group with high isolation had significantly lower score than medium isolation groups ( P = 0.043) and they differed from low isolation group at the significance level P = 0.056. Medium and low isolation group were similar in their mental health scores, which was significantly higher than mental health in the control group ( P  = 0.018) ().

Discussion

The specific life circumstances in the isolated island populations include geographic isolation within a relatively small area, presumed social isolation of the entire population, scarce health services, and many other limitations in the practical everyday life. Those populations represent an opportunity for investigating the health-related quality of life. It could be expected that the island populations would score lower on health-related quality of life measure in comparison with the mainland population due to the aforementioned factors. However, our results showed that self reported health of Croatian island populations was better than that of the controls in 3 out of 8 dimensions, ie, physical functioning, vitality, and pain. Regarding physical health, it is possible that in these populations natural selection takes place in a way that individuals with bad health leave the island earlier in life in search of specialized health service. In that way, the physically stronger stay on the island till their old age. On the social functioning dimension, islanders reported lower health than controls from the Croatian general population. This can be explained by their geographical and social isolation. Also, islands have small populations, and often large proportion of older people. Geographically isolated populations are dependent on transportation via air and water, which limits their social functioning, such as meeting new people and getting involved in different social activities. High isolation group reported the lowest score on mental health dimension. This dimension indicates psychological distress and well-being. High score indicates depression and sadness and low score indicates sadness and depression. Low mental health can also be explained by the combination of geographical isolation and small number of inhabitants, mostly older people. Islanders in general reported lower social functioning than controls. Low score indicates that their social life suffers due to physical or emotional health. Emotional and psychological problems reported by islanders in the high isolation group can be explained by difficulties in social functioning and not by the physical health, which they assessed as very good. Despite these negative aspects, islanders reported very good health-related quality of life, as can be seen from their scores which were in the upper half of possible range. A study conducted in 1985 among elderly inhabitants of the Adriatic island of Iž also showed high health-related quality of life ( 17).

A study comparing five middle Dalmatian islands (Brač, Hvar, Korčula, Vis, and Lastovo) with Koprivničko-križevačka County in the northwest continental Croatia regarding the age-standardized incidence rates of gastric, bowel, and pancreatic cancer, showed significantly lower standardized incidence rates of gastric and pancreatic cancer in the island population ( 18). The explanation was that the "Mediterranean" type of diet could have a protective effect against gastric and pancreatic cancer. Ecologic factors, like favorable climate and type of diet, evidently have a role in the health and in the health-related quality of life. However, the whole spectrum of socio economic life conditions must be kept in mind as an important factor determining magnitude of health conditions. People who live on islands are isolated from the general population on the mainland, but they have stronger connections among themselves. The study on the island of Iž showed that out of 105 participants there was not a single one who was not able to get medical help or drugs when needed. If they were not able to ask for help themselves, their relatives and neighbors did it for them. Results revealed that 28 of the 30 people who lived alone had regular daily conversations with people in the village ( 17). In contrast to our data, this study showed that people on islands were less socially isolated than, for example, citizens of large cities, often called "alienated." Much lower everyday stresses and life in more familiar surrounding could be the explanation why people on Croatian islands measure their health-related quality of life on many dimensions better than people from the mainland. Nevertheless, low mental health score of islanders in the group with high isolation should be taken in account when planning health services for islands. It was also a good indicator for social policy for the islands.

Comprehensive account of population health status requires both subjective and objective measures, and subjective measures are not a substitute for objective measures, nor do they provide condition-specific information (map to specific disease processes); the subjective measures of health status, such as the global self rated health question and SF-36, do reveal information about the impact on health of chronic diseases and disability that are not reflected in statistics on hospital discharges, primary health care or disability support services.

Beside other documented applications of SF-36, it is a useful tool for better understanding of conditions of life and self perceived health-related quality of life of isolated island populations.

Acknowledgments

The study was partially supported through the grant from the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia (No. 0108330). The authors collectively thank to very large number of individuals (medical students of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia; local general practitioners and nurses in study populations; the employees of several other Croatian institutions, including but not limited to the University of Rijeka and Split, Croatia; Croatian Institute of Public Health; Institutes of Public Health in Split and Dubrovnik, Croatia; and the Institute for Anthropological Research in Zagreb, Croatia) for their individual help in planning and carrying out the field work related to the project.

References

1. Barbaric S. Health and health care on Croatian islands. Croat Med J. 1996;37:185-92.

4. Krzisnik C, Kolacio Z, Battelino T, Brown M, Parks JS, Laron Z. The "little people" of the island of Krk - revisited. Etiology of hypopituitarism revealed. J Endocr Genet. 1999;1:9-19.

9. Stevanovic R. Health, socio-psychological and genetic peculiarities of the Susak island native population [dissertation]. Zagreb: Zagreb University School of Medicine; 2004.

14. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln: Quality Metric Inc; 2003.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mental Health and Health-related Quality of Life in Croatian Island Population

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To explore differences in self-perceived health as an indicator of health status and mortality, in six isolated populations from Croatian islands and to compare the results with control from general Croatian population obtained through the National Health Survey. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Short Form Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36).

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for October 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the recent discovery of flowing liquid water on Mars, talk has turned to what it would take to colonize Mars. But before you pack your bags, it's worth thinking about whether we should colonize Mars.

Here I am not arguing for a definitive answer to that question. Rather, I consider some of the ethical implications of a human outpost on the red planet, implications whose contemplation should be central to our space strategy rather than an afterthought.
Potential harm to Martian life forms.
Probably the strongest ethical argument against colonizing Mars would be if such colonization had the potential to harm any indigenous life forms that might be on Mars. Of course, we are not aware of any such life forms at the moment. The discovery of liquid water (and indications that the Martian surface may once have had much more of it) raises the possibility that there might have been life on Mars in the past. Life forms that once were, but are no longer, are probably immune to harmful impacts from Earthling settlement on Mars.

But what about indigenous life forms that haven't happened yet? What if there are processes happening right now through which life on Mars could emerge? If Earthling settlement would disrupt these processes, is that a harm we ought to avoid? More generally, do we have ethical obligations to potential life forms?

This question gets into ethical territory that is contentious among Earthlings, who don't always agree about our obligations to potential humans on a timescale of nine months or of several generations. I'm not sure the ethical disagreements get any clearer just because we have them on a different planet.

And even if moral intuitions were clear and uniform, here's another challenge: What is the moral status of life forms different enough from the ones we have on Earth that we might fail to recognize them as "life" in the first place? In the interests of extreme galactic biodiversity, would there be on obligation not to harm anything that might be alive (and to assume that our methods for assessing what's alive in our early encounters with Martian life are likely to give false negatives)? Does our sense of moral community only extend to life forms that sufficiently resemble Earth life forms? Would we recognize exotic Martian life forms as alive if they had the weaponry to make us?
Potential harmful impacts on Earth.
Even if Mars is a lifeless planet, whether it's ethical to colonize Mars may depend on what kinds of consequences the mission has here on Earth. The machinery of space travel uses natural resources. It generates waste products. It shifts funds away from other projects or purposes.

The ethical issue here is not just the magnitude of the costs of a colonization mission relative to the benefits of establishing a Mars colony. It's also a matter of how those costs and benefits are distributed - of whether the people who bear the costs will also enjoy the benefits.

Indeed, the social impacts of colonizing Mars may provide the most difficult ethical terrain. If a Mars colony holds the promise of a new start, an escape from messes we have created on our home planet, we need to consider the fairness of who gets to escape and who is left behind to deal with the mess. Even years prior to any realistic hope of a crewed mission to Mars, we might weigh the impacts of shifting scientific and engineering brainpower to this challenge - and away from addressing other human aspirations and needs, some of them quite pressing.

At the very least, we should think through the ethical implications of a project likely to benefit few people directly. Will it help Earthbound humans to address disease, climate change, war, social and economic inequality? Will it undercut efforts to address these issues?
Potential harmful impacts on the solar system.
Any mission of colonization from Earth to Mars takes for granted the larger environment of the solar system in which both planets maintain orbits. If the mission generates enough space junk to make future space travel hazardous, or involves engineering projects on Mars that end up disrupting the gravitational balance between heavenly bodies, that could be bad, both for the colonists and for folks back on Earth. It doesn't strike me as a likely consequence, but someone should surely do the calculations on this before any major Martian infrastructure projects commence.
Impacts on the pristine Martian environment.
Let's say even under our most expansive definition of "life" Mars turns out to be lifeless. Might we still have an obligation to preserve the pristine Martian environment?

Arguably, leaving the Martian environment in its current state might be of instrumental value (e.g., to scientists studying the natural geological history of the planet, or to sky-gazers). Surely, there would be something distasteful about marring the Martian landscape with a billboard visible from Earth. But is there more than instrumental value at stake here? If we have such an obligation, it strikes me as an extreme version of the position that we have ethical obligations to nature itself, regardless of its instrumental value to us. We usually think of nature as including various sorts of living things. Does a lifeless landscape have intrinsic value that places ethical obligations on us? Those who hold that it does should sharpen their argument while Mars is still pristine.
Should we assume that Mars is ours?
Even if we can work out the technical challenges around establishing a Mars colony, do we need it? What if some other inhabitants of the galaxy need Mars more (perhaps because their world has been destroyed) but we happened to get there first. Would we have an obligation to help them out by sharing Mars, or by ceding it to them and going back to Earth? Should we be thinking of Mars as a shared resource?

Who else do we imagine might need it, and for what? Maybe the real reason to protect the pristine Martian environment is in order to cultivate restraint in ourselves, rather than feeding our rapacious appetite for conquest.

Just because we have the technical capacity to do something doesn't mean that we should do it. Sending a crewed mission or human colonists to Mars is an expensive and risky undertaking if the goal just amounts to having Mars for our own.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the recent discovery of flowing liquid water on Mars, talk has turned to what it would take to colonize Mars. But before you pack your bags, it's worth thinking about whether we should colonize Mars. Here I am not arguing for a definitive answer to that question.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for October 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The only time that a formally designated NASA "life detection" mission was flown to another planet or moon was when the two Viking landers headed to Mars forty years ago.

The odds of finding some kind of Martian life seemed so promising at the time that there was little dispute about how much energy, money and care should be allocated to making sure the capsule would not be carrying any Earth life to the planet. And so after the two landers had been assembled, they were baked at more than 250 °F for three days to sterilize any parts that would come into contact with Mars.

Although the two landers successfully touched down on the Martian surface and did some impressive science, the life detection portion of the mission was something of a fiasco - with conflict, controversy and ultimately quite a bit of confusion.

Clearly, scientists did not yet know enough about how to search for life beyond Earth and the confounding results pretty much eliminated life-detection from NASA's missions for decades.

But scientific and technological advances of the last ten years have put life detection squarely back on the agenda - in terms of future searches for fossil biosignatures on Mars and for potential life surviving in the oceans of Europa and Enceladus. What's more, both NASA and private space companies talk seriously of sending humans to Mars in the not-too-distant future.

With so many missions being planned, developed and proposed for solar system planets and moons, the issue of planetary protection has also gained a higher profile. It seems to have become more contentious and to some seems far less straight-forward as it used to be.

A broad consensus appears to remain that bringing Earth life to another planet or moon, especially if it is potentially habitable, is a real possibility that is both scientifically and ethically fraught. But there are rumblings about just how much time, money and attention needs to be brought to satisfying the requirements of "planetary protection."

In fact, it has become a sufficiently significant question that the first plenary session of the recent Astrobiology Science Conference in Mesa, Arizona was dedicated to it. The issue, which was taken up in later technical sessions as well, was how to assess and weigh the risks of bringing Earth life to other bodies versus the benefits of potentially sending out more missions, more often and more cheaply.

It is not a simple problem, explained Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Innovation Lab at Arizona State University. Indeed, he told the audience of scientists that it was a "wicked problem," a broadly used terms for issues that are especially complex and involve numerous issues and players.

As he later elaborated to me, other "wicked" risk-benefit problems include gene editing and autonomous driving - both filled with great potential and serious potential downsides. Like travel to other planets and moons.

"This is subjective," Maynard said, "but I'd put planetary protection on the more wicked end of the spectrum. It combines individual priorities and ethics - what people and groups deeply believe is right - with huge uncertainties. That makes it something never really experienced before and so escalates all factors of wickedness."

Those groups include scientists (who very much don't want Mars or another potentially habitable place to be contaminated with Earth life before they can get there), to advocates of greater space exploration (who worry that planetary protection will slow or eliminate some missions they very much want to proceed), to NASA mission managers (worried about delays and costs associated with planetary protections surprises.)

And then there's the general public which might (or might not) have entirely different ethical concerns about the potential for contaminating other planets and moons with Earth life.

No wonder the problem is deemed wicked.

We'll get into the pros and cons, but first some background:

I asked NASA's Planetary Protection officer, Catharine Conley, whether Earth life has been transported to its most likely solar system destination, Mars.

Her reply: "There are definitely Earth organisms that we've brought to Mars and are still alive on the spacecraft."

She said it is quite possible that some of those organisms were brushed off the vehicles or otherwise were shed and fell to the surface. Because of the strong ultraviolet radiation and the Earth life-destroying chemical makeup of the soil, however, it's unlikely the organisms could last for long, and equally unlikely that any would have made it below the surface. Nonetheless, it is sobering to hear that Earth life has already made it to Mars.

Related to this reality is the understanding that Earth life, in the form of bacteria, algae and fungi and their spores, can be extraordinarily resilient. Organisms have been discovered that can survive unimagined extremes of heat and cold, can withstand radiation that would kill us, and can survive as dormant spores for tens of thousands of years.

What's more, Mars scientists now know that the planet was once much warmer and wetter, and that ice underlies substantial portions of the planet. There are even signs today of seasonal runs of what some scientists argue is very briny surface water.

So the risk of Earth life surviving a ride to another planet or moon is probably greater than imagined earlier, and the possibility of that Earth life potentially surviving and spreading on a distant surface (think the oceans of Europa and Enceladus, or maybe a briny, moist hideaway on Mars) is arguably greater too. From a planetary protection perspective, all of this is worrisome.

The logic of planetary protection is, like almost everything involved with the subject, based on probabilities. Discussed as far back as the 1950s and formalized in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the standard agreed on is to take steps that ensure there is less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of a spaceship or lander or instrument from Earth bringing life to another body.

This figure takes into account the number of microorganisms on the spacecraft, the probability of growth on the planet or moon where the mission is headed, and a series of potential sanitizing to sterilizing procedures that can be used. A formula for assessing the risk of a mission for planetary protection purposes was worked out in 1965 by Carl Sagan, along with Harvard theoretical physicist Sidney Coleman.

A lot has been learned since that time, and some in the field say it's time to re-address the basics of planetary protection. They argue, for instance, that since we now know that Earth life can (theoretically, at least) be carried inside a meteorite from our planet to Mars, then Earth life may have long been on Mars - if it is robust enough to survive when it lands.

In addition, a great deal more is known about how to sanitize a space vehicle without baking it entirely - a step that is both very costly and could prove deadly to the more sophisticated capsules and instruments. And more is known about the punishing environment on the surface of Mars and elsewhere.

People ranging from Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin to Cornell University Visiting Scientist Alberto G. Fairén in Nature Geoscience have argued - and sometimes railed - against planetary protection requirements. NASA mission managers have often voiced their concerns as well. The regulations, some say, slow the pace of exploration and science to avoid a vanishingly small risk.

Brent Sherwood, program manager for solar system mission formulation at JPL, spoke at AbSciCon about what he sees as the need for a review and possibly reassessment of the planetary protection rules and regulations. As someone who helps scientists put together proposals for NASA missions in the solar system, he has practical and long considered views about planetary protection.

He and his co-authors argue that the broad conversation that needs to take place should include scientists, ethicists, managers, and policy makers; and especially should include the generations that will actually implement and live with the consequences of these missions.

In the abstract for his talk, Sherwood wrote:

"The (1 chance in 10,000) requirement may not be as logically sound or deserving of perpetuation as generally assumed. What status should this requirement have within an ethical decision-making process? Do we need a meta-ethical discussion about absolute values, rather than an arbitrary number that purports to govern the absolute necessity of preserving scientific discovery or protecting alien life?"

As he later he told me: "I'm recommending that we be proactive and engage the broadest possible range of stakeholder communities.... With these big, hairy risk problems, everything is probabilistic and open to argument. People are bad at thinking of very small and very big numbers, and the same for risks. They tend to substitute opinion for fact."

Sherwood is no foe of planetary protection. But he said planetary protection is a "foundational" part of the space program, and he wants to make sure it is properly adapted for the new space era we are entering.

Planetary protection officer Conley contends that regular reviews are already built into the system. She told me that every mission gets a thorough planetary protection assessment early in the process, and that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, the risks and architecture of the missions are studied within the context of the prevailing rules.

In addition, she said, the group that oversees planetary protection internationally - the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) - meets every two years and its Panel on Planetary Protection takes up general topics and welcomes input from whomever might want to raise issues large or small.

"You hear it said that there are protected areas on Mars or Europa where missions can't go, but that's not the case," she said. "These are sensitive areas where life just might be present now or was present in the past. If that's the case, then the capsule or lander or rover has to be sterilized to the level of the Viking missions."

She said that she understood that today's spacecraft are different from Viking, which was designed and built from scratch with planetary protection in mind. Today, JPL and other mission builders get some of their parts "off the shelf" in an effort to make space exploration less expensive.

"We do have to balance the goals of exploration and space science with making sure that Earth life does not take hold. We also have to be aware that taxpayer money is being spent. But if a mission sent out returns a signal of life, what have we achieved if it turns out to be life we brought there?

"I see planetary protection as a great success story. People identified a potential contamination problem back in the '50s, put regulations into place, and have succeeded in avoiding the problem. This kind of global cooperation that leads to the preventing of a potentially major problem just doesn't happen that often."

The global cooperation has been robust, Conley said, despite the fact that only NASA and the European Space Agency have a full-time planetary protection officer. She cited the planning for the joint Russian-Chinese mission to the Martian moon Phobos as an example of other nations agreeing to very high standards. She and her European Space Agency (ESA) counterpart traveled twice to Moscow to discuss planetary protection steps being taken.

So far, she said private space companies have been attentive to planetary protection as well. Some of the commercial space activity in the future involves efforts to mine on asteroids, and Conley said there is no planetary protection issues involved. The same with mining on our moon.

But should the day arrive that private companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin seriously propose a human mission to Mars - as they have said they plan to - Conley said they would have the same obligations as any NASA mission. The US has not yet determined how to ensure that compliance, she said, but companies already would need Federal Aviation Administration approval for a launch, and planetary protection is part of that.

Risk innovation expert Maynard, however, was not so sure about those protections. He said he could imagine a situation where Elon Musk of SpaceX or Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin or any other space entrepreneur around the world would decide to move their launch to a nation that would be willing to provide the service without intensive planetary protection oversight.

"The risk of this may be small, but this is all about the potentially outsize consequences of small risks," he said.

Maynard said that was hardly a likely scenario - and that commercial space pioneers so far have been supportive of planetary protection guidelines - but that he was well aware of the displeasure among some mission managers and participating scientists about planetary protection requirements.

Given all this, it's easy to see how and why planetary protection advocates might feel that the floodgates are being tested, and why space explorers looking forward to a time when Mars and other bodies might be visited by astronauts and later potentially colonized are concerned about potential obstacles to their visions.

This column has addressed the issue of "forward contamination" - how to prevent Earth life from being carried to another potentially habitable solar system body and surviving there. But there is another planetary protection worry and that involves "backward contamination" - how to handle the return of potentially living extraterrestrial organisms to Earth.

That will be the subject of a later column, but suffice it to say it is very much on the global space agenda, too.

The Apollo astronauts famously brought back pounds of moon rocks, and grains of asteroid and comet dust have also been retrieved and delivered. A sample return mission by the Russian and Chinese space agencies was designed to return rock or grain samples from the Martian moon Phobos earlier this decade, but the spacecraft did not make it beyond low Earth orbit.

However, the future will see many more sample return attempts. The Japanese space agency JAXA launched a mission to the asteroid 162173 Ryugu in 2014 (Hayabusa 2) and it will arrive there next year. The plan is to collect rock and dust samples and bring them back to Earth. NASA's OSIRIS-REx is also making its way to an asteroid, 101955 Bennu, with the goal of collecting a sample as well for return to Earth.

And in 2020 both NASA and ESA (with Russian collaboration) will launch spacecraft for Mars with the intention of preparing for future sample returns. Sample return is a very high priority in the Mars and space science communities, and many consider it essential for determining whether there has ever been life on Mars.

So the "wicked" challenges of planetary protection are only going to mount in the years ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planetary Protection is a "Wicked" Problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The only time that a formally designated NASA "life detection" mission was flown to another planet or moon was when the two Viking landers headed to Mars forty years ago.

# data[].attributes.body
Required reading for October 3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world sucks right now. Terrorism. Climate change. Political acrimony. Nonstop Justin Bieber songs.

It's nice to know Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have a plan. They will help the richest people in the world go to Mars and start over, leaving the other 99 percent to suffer on a dying, warring planet. The only solace for those of us left here will be that the Biebs should be prosperous enough to go with them.

This is the unspoken flip side of Musk's SpaceX and Bezos's Blue Origin. The space travel companies say they are creating a way for the human species to endure by populating other planets. But the bottom line is that only the wealthy will have the means to move to Mars. Musk's target ticket price is $500,000 a person in 2015 dollars, and that's just to get there. Imagine the new outfits you'll have to buy to go with that space helmet.

So you can picture a scenario that's something like the 1970s white flight from inner cities, when the wealthier classes moved to freshly built suburbs, leaving the declining neighborhoods to the lower classes. In fact, the fleeing upper classes sped up the decrepitude of that era's older cities by relocating their money and clout with them. Today, we're seeing a similar situation in Syria, as the wealthiest and most educated people escape to the West, which will make the country even harder to stabilize and rebuild.

67

47
Related: An Entertaining Theory: NASA Finds Buddha Statue on Mars
Such a dynamic could apply to the whole world in about 40 years. Maybe historians and scientists, charting Earth's degeneration will trace a direct link back to this month's climate talks in Paris. Couldn't make a deal stick, they'll say. Environment spun out of control. Drought. Upheaval. Anarchy. And then Wall Street bankers, tech titans, CEOs and Jay Z's entourage decided to get the hell out and build McMansions in Martian space bubbles.

All this might sound crazy-except it's not. Last month, Blue Origin advanced the technology of space flight by another important notch. The secretive company launched a rocket 62 miles into space and then landed it upright, like you might see in a sci-fi movie, just a few feet from the rocket's launchpad. It's a step toward making reusable rockets, and reusable rockets are absolutely essential to getting the cost of a Mars flight low enough to expand the target market beyond the Forbes 400.
See all of the best photos of the week in these slideshows
For comparison's sake, NASA space shuttle missions cost about $200 million per astronaut, and those flights went only into orbit. Compared with going to Mars, orbit is like putting a toe in the Atlantic versus sailing from Europe to the New World. And the shuttle, by the way, was not a reusable rocket-it was a reusable passenger compartment. No one had previously made a reusable rocket, which is a big reason space cost so much. The economics were as bad as if you had to buy a new engine for every car trip.

Blue Origin is now ginning up a real space race with SpaceX, which will help drive innovation and lower costs. Musk got a head start and has guided SpaceX into the business of launching satellites as a way to practice for human space travel. Bezos opened Blue Origin-a little side project when he's not running Amazon.com-specifically to carry people to other planets, and it got its first rocket off the ground in April.

Also in the mix are Richard Branson with his Virgin Galactic and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who funded the nerdily named Stratolaunch Systems. Space is turning into a billionaire-athon. If Donald Trump doesn't become president, you just know there has to be a Trump Spaceship in his future.

Of course, launching a few rockets and saying you're going to Mars is like writing a haiku and saying you're going to become the next John Updike. But these guys are serious. "Our ultimate vision is millions of people living and working in space," Bezos told reporters after the Blue Origin landing. Musk makes even grander statements. "We need to be laser-focused on becoming a multi-planet civilization," he's said. "That's the next step."

At least in some circles, building colonies on Mars has entered the realm of the possible. Some writers and scientists think the first brave souls will make the six-month journey to Mars within 10 years, and that's Musk's prediction. Not long after the technology is proven, regular flights of supplies and people will begin. The pioneers will have to build habitable indoor spaces and, later, domed communities. As this year's hit movie The Martian showed us, once on Mars it's possible to grow food, make breathable air and harvest energy from solar panels. Musk calls Mars "a fixer-upper of a planet," but by 2040, he says, there should be a thriving colonial Martiantown.

That time frame is sobering-just 25 years from now. Think how fast 25 years can whip by. If you go back to 1990, Bill Clinton was eyeing his first run for the presidency, and Tim Berners-Lee was proposing the World Wide Web.

The real migration will start post-2040. Volume will drive down flight prices from tens of millions of dollars a person to $500,000. People will start companies on Mars. They'll take their families. "It's not going to be a vacation jaunt," Musk said in interviews. "It's going to be saving up all your money and selling all your stuff, like when people moved to the early American colonies." His goal, which he believes is achievable, is to get Mars up to a population of 1 million, which Musk says "is the critical threshold for us as a civilization to not join the potentially large number of one-planet dead civilizations out there."

And that comment gets to the point about who goes and why. Some will go to seek opportunity, but the quiet assumption is that many will go out of self-preservation. The sad calculus is that the Mars business looks better the worse things get on Earth. And if that's the case, it's actually not like moving from Europe to the American colonies in 1700, when things were OK in Europe. It sounds more like escaping a ravaged land to go somewhere safe and start over.
Related: Jeff Bezos's Company Blue Origin Launches and Lands a Rocket
Who will do that? The cost of the flight and setting up on another planet will hover well past the means of almost anyone but the superrich. Where will these wealthy people come from? Most of the space travel companies so far are American. What if those companies take mostly Americans? Will we start a human colony on Mars or an American colony?

Maybe later Mars will rebel and sign its Declaration of Independence from Earth. Maybe it will shut its borders and refuse any more refugees from that hot, horrible, hungry origin planet. We're the exceptional people, the Martians might say, and all of you Earthlings just keep screwing up your home, so we don't want you.

They might even send Bieber back. Wouldn't that teach us a lesson?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world sucks right now. Terrorism. Climate change. Political acrimony. Nonstop Justin Bieber songs. It's nice to know Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have a plan. They will help the richest people in the world go to Mars and start over, leaving the other 99 percent to suffer on a dying, warring planet.

# data[].attributes.body
This article looks into many ethical questions that are raised from the idea of space exploration. It looks into digging into Martian soil, leaving instruments and tools on a "foreign" planet, and the possibility of ruining Mars. Also, microbes are more than likely in outer space and is it ethical to kill them? Lastly, this article addresses how humans and Earth may be "set up for failure" through the colonization of Mars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight ethical questions about exploring outer space that need answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Metallic shrapnel flying faster than bullets; the Space Shuttle smashed to pieces; astronauts killed or ejected into space. The culprit? Space debris - remnants of a Russian satellite blown up by a Russian missile. The ...

# data[].attributes.body
This article asks some very intriguing questions regarding the colonization of Mars. For example, it asks, "Should we respect Martian life forms if we find them?" and "How thoroughly do we search for life forms?" After asking these questions, the article goes into some of the common answers to these questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
is it ethical to colonize mars? (opinion)  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is it ethical to colonize Mars? (Opinion) - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the moral value of native Martian life vs. creating a "backup Earth"?

# data[].attributes.body
This article expands on studies that specifically address ethical issues on Mars or plans of going to Mars. The main concerns are selection of who should travel, consequence of going for one’s health, why should we go, what do we intend to do with it, and is it useful or necessary and overall how these could have long term and lasting effects upon society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elon Musk, inventor and CEO of SpaceX, recently shared his vision to build the first human city on Mars within a decade. For the cost of a home, The Interplanetary Transport System would take you and 100 tons of cargo to the Red Planet.

In 2013, the Kepler spacecraft found nearly 40 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy. As NASA explores the heavens for more habitable planets, Musk has mused about his "duty to maintain the light of consciousness" via space colonization. Last year, astronauts were able to taste fresh food grown in space, and NASA continues to invest in Veggie technology, a critical component of space transportation. A multi-planetary species is one that lives on more than one planet, and the work to make humans multi-planetary has begun.

Should we take ourselves to other planets? Human rationality and values have woven dark, damaged, all-powerful systems into the tapestry of civilization. Most notably among these systems is capitalism and its partner, consumerism. Do we see ourselves moving planet to planet, sucking life out of each one for our own survival? If we are to impress ourselves onto this universe, we must solemnly inquire about our impact on it.

Capitalism and consumerism have become the epitome of perpetuating systems that adversely turn our species parasitic. Consumption has increased the size of our landfills while decreasing the ethical standards we expect from businesses. Industry and mindless consumerism intertwined to create our current state. Now, they must disentangle and consumerism must lead industry out of planetary and ethical degradation. Mindful consumerism is how we can turn business into a force for good. A mass-scale shift in consumer spending will inevitably create a value-shift in capitalism, which will upend modern civilization's parasitic effect on this planet.

The dawn of modern consumerism began in the 1940s, not even a century ago. Fossil-led supply has grown in tandem with advertising-fueled consumerism. Industry won't become a part of the solution unless society creates strong market demand for sustainability and social impact.

Robert M. Pirsig, who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, an investigation into the metaphysics of modern rationality, notes that the litmus test for a functioning machine is the satisfaction and tranquility it provides the user. Humans bring neither satisfaction nor tranquility to Earth and its life forms. Instead, we've developed systems that extract great value from the Earth and give little back. Pirsig's solution to when a machine is broken gives us two paths forward: We can change ourselves or change our machine.

Humans bring neither satisfaction nor tranquility to Earth and its life forms.

In our current collective state, we would be a burden on other planets and forms of life. We must change ourselves urgently and then pass on higher sensibilities of consciousness, rationality, ethics and values to future generations to build upon. The exponential pace of technology demands that the time for root-shifts in our structures is now, as this will be nearly impossible as a multi-planetary species.

Mindful or conscious consumerism is the application of personal economics toward goods or services that entrench environmental and social solutions into their business models. Conscious consumerism occurs when consumers align their wallets with their values. When mindless consumption is traded for mindful consumerism, we create ethics where there previously were none. The shift toward conscious consumption is led by millennials; in a global Nielsen survey, 73 percent of young respondents said they are willing to pay more for sustainable goods.

Capitalism needs conscious consumerism to support companies whose supply chains, profit structures, product, packaging and more express value in their eco and ethical impact. When these businesses make a profit, they set in motion a perpetuating system of positive change that, unlike charity or CSR, is entangled within its rationality rather than a byproduct of it.

I grew up in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India because of my father's work in impact investing with the World Bank. As I bid farewell to the majestic spirit of southern Africa six years after calling it "home" and celebrated Tet in Vietnam, I was humbled by my front-row seat to the power of capitalism to make meaningful environmental and social impact. Consumers can and should support businesses that lift communities out of poverty and add value to the environment.

While the trend toward conscious consumerism has already begun, it hasn't generated nearly enough momentum to keep up with our pace of environmental destruction. Nielsen reports that in 2015, sales of consumer goods from brands with a commitment to sustainability grew more than 4 percent, while those without such a commitment grew less than 1 percent.

Conscious consumerism occurs when consumers align their wallets with their values.

Across industries, businesses that are good for the planet and its life are experiencing growth. Innovation and entrepreneurialism have engendered new business models and birthed creative solutions to our greatest crisis. There hasn't been a more exciting and dynamic time to exercise one's values upon budgets. In food, local and organically grown produce continue to become more accessible. The cost of solar energy is reducing. Faster change is required for us to see large enough shifts in consumer spending that will meaningfully combat our urgent environmental and social crisis. The power lies within the daily choices of average consumers who choose what and how to buy.

History will look back at us and wonder why we didn't make more conscious choices about what we consume in order to save our ecosystem. As those fortunate to have means and choices in consumption, will we arm ourselves with knowledge and values to wield our economics for our planet, rationality and ethics? When we make our next purchase, will we support those parts of the solution? Will we avoid the simple Google search to locate ethical, sustainable alternatives to our traditional toiletries or clothing, or will we continue our current habits due to convenience, cost and lack of knowledge or will?

Do we deserve to become multi-planetary? Let us become productive participants in the glorious dance of life. If we can dream of the insurmountable task of becoming multi-planetary, then surely we can fathom expending the energy, resources and willpower that come with making mindful purchase and waste decisions.

If we can succeed in preserving our current planet and its ecosystems, we save human consciousness and the integrity of our values. As Elon Musk describes his desire to keep the "light of consciousness" alive, I press that we also ensure it's brightly illuminated and worthy of traversing this magnificent universe.

Featured Image: MARK GARLICK/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elon Musk, inventor and CEO of SpaceX, recently shared his vision to build the first human city on Mars within a decade. For the cost of a home, The Interplanetary Transport System would take you and 100 tons of cargo to the Red Planet.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides a broad overview of several ethical issues about the colonization of Mars, but spends the majority of the time focused on the concept of invasive species, how humans affect that, and if humans can qualify for the definition of it ourselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every summer for the past 20 years, Pascal Lee has traveled to the remote Canadian Arctic to pretend he's on Mars. This cold, dry, pockmarked and essentially lifeless environment is one of the closest to the red planet that you can find on Earth-making it a great practice ground for driving Mars rovers.

Lee, a planetary scientist at the SETI Institute in California, is the director of the NASA Haughton Mars Project, where he uses this analog Mars environment to investigate scientific questions concerning how humans might threaten life on other planets we colonize.

For example, if humans travel to Mars, would microbes transferred from our bodies thrive on Martian soil-threatening native Martian microbes and disrupting native ecosystems? Recent results from Lee's research suggest the answer to that is no, at least not on the surface of Martian soil: Mars' harsh climate and high UV radiation would kill off many of the microbes we may accidentally bring from Earth.

But the Haughton Mars Project-along with other Mars analog study sites in Antarctica and the Atacama Desert in Chile-also inadvertently bring to light numerous ethical questions of how we should behave as interplanetary colonists. As humans accelerate their space travel capacity and aim to colonize Mars in the next several decades, these questions are becoming less lofty and more immediately urgent.

Here's another scenario: If humans were to land on Mars and were somehow lethally threatened by Martians, should humans attack the Martians? In his personal opinion, Lee says the answer would be yes. "If at some point it came down to either me or the microbe on Mars that's going to survive, I'm probably not going to hesitate," he says.

Yet these are not simple questions to address, and are not within the realm of the Haughton Mars Project to answer. The International Council for Science, consisting of 142 countries, has organized a Committee on Space Research ( COSPAR) to help answer some of these questions and a United Nations Outer Space Treaty, in place since 1967, also helps streamline some of the ethical and legal implications that this issue raises.

But the treaty is meant to protect the safety of humans and scientific evidence of life on other planets, not to protect the environments or ecosystems of those planets. Moreover, the contents of the treaty are just guidelines: They are not laws, and the legal implications of not following them remain unclear, says Catharine Conley, head officer at NASA's Planetary Protection Office.

"The peer pressure approach has, up until now, worked," she says, explaining that it's in space agencies' best interest to work together since they often rely on each other for collaboration and advancement. But now, as more private companies like SpaceX enter the field to visit Mars, the playing field has changed.

"When you have other entities included that don't have those same long term science objectives, it gets more complicated," says Conley.

Under the current treaty guidelines, federal governments are responsible for the behavior of both their space agencies and nongovernmental space entities in their country. So a company like SpaceX must be authorized to launch by a government agency before lift off-but if it accidentally or intentionally fails to comply with the treaty guidelines at some point in flight, another country could theoretically sue the U.S. government or take other legal actions, says Conley.

Despite general good intentions and hard work to keep spacecraft free of contaminants, Conley says the biggest threat humans pose to other planets is what we don't know-or what we think we know, but don't. While research from the Haughton Mars Project suggests limited microbial transfer from rovers to Mars soil, other dynamics could exist on Mars or other planets that researchers haven't even thought to anticipate.

"For certain types of Earth organisms, Mars is a gigantic dinner plate," says Conley. "We don't know, but it could be that those organisms would grow much more rapidly than they would on Earth because they have this unaffected environment and everything is there for them to use."

So far, most of the attention to these ethical issues has focused on Mars, the most realistic subject of colonization in the near future. But other types of planets may bring up new concerns. "You can invent all kinds of scenarios, but the problem is currently it's all open because no one has explored these things before," says Conley, referring to the legal implications of contaminating Mars or another planet. "So until you have a case, you can't decide what to do. But of course from the standpoint of planetary protection, as soon as you have a case, something has already gone wrong."

There are also dangers that fall beyond the realm of planetary protection. Take energy production: In order for humans to live on another planet, we will need to develop a way to produce electricity. A substance called perchlorate exists in relatively high quantities on Mars (and also on Earth in bleach and other substances), making up about 1 percent of all the dust on the red planet. This highly energetic salt could potentially offer a good source of energy for humans on Mars, but not if humans accidentally introduce a microbe that eats it up before we have a chance to use it, says Conley.

Unfortunately, the guidelines put in place by the Outer Space Treaty won't necessarily prevent this type of mistake from happening. The guidelines are strict on keeping spacecraft clean when looking for life on other planets, but less stringent for spacecraft traveling to a celestial body for other reasons. This is because planetary protection guidelines exist to preserve scientific evidence of extraterrestrial life-not the environments of other planets, says Gerhard Kminek, the planetary protection officer at the European Space Agency.

Working groups of COSPAR, including the Panel on Potentially Environmentally Detrimental Activities in Space, do explore how space activities might disrupt other planets' environments. These panels report to the United Nations with their findings. But again, they only offer guidelines, not laws, says Kminek. So it's up to international space agencies to recognize the importance of building best practices in spacecraft sanitation and keeping up with the sometimes onerous standards set by the Outer Space Treaty.

"If you do it badly once, that might be enough to compromise any future investigation related to life," says Kminek. "And that's why there is strong international consensus making sure there are no bad players around."

The standards for travel also differ from one celestial body to another. For instance, Mars atmosphere is thick enough that it will burn off certain microbes upon entry-allowing spacecraft sanitation standards to remain laxer than they would be for vehicles landing somewhere with a very thin atmosphere, like Jupiter's moon Europa, Kminek says.

That is, at least based on our understanding of these celestial bodies right now. During the Apollo missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 70s, we learned how unforeseen obstacles can cause critical problems in space travel. On the Moon, the threat lunar dust posed to astronauts was underestimated until it started getting stuck in the crevices of their face and in their zippers, jeopardizing the integrity of their spacesuits, says Margaret Race, a colleague of Conley's at the SETI Institute.

"Had they been up there a little longer, their spacesuits would not have worked," Race says.

Late astronaut and engineer Eugene Cernan, the last man to have walked on the Moon, stated the enormity of the dust problem during an Apollo 17 technical debrief in 1973: "I think dust is probably one of our greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon," he stated. "We can overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust."

Humans also didn't do a good job limiting the transport of material from Earth to the Moon or vice versa, says Race. The Moon is lifeless, so this had little consequence on either celestial body. But if the Moon harbored life and a transfer of species did occur, the consequences would have been far greater. "If there were life on the Moon, we would have it here now," she says. "We did the best we could at the time, but we didn't understand."

While space engineering has come a long way since the Apollo missions, plenty of work remains to determine the best practices in protecting life on other planets from humans, says Conley. And when we do finally land on Mars, the advancements will need to continue-even if it appears that scientists have sufficient knowledge of human threat to other planets.

"My response to that is, as soon as you eat your first candy bar, do you stop brushing your teeth?" says Conley. "We should keep doing it." Because, in the end, what we don't know will end up being the most dangerous threat humans pose to these other worlds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Humans Begin Colonizing Other Planets, Who Should Be in Charge?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every summer for the past 20 years, Pascal Lee has traveled to the remote Canadian Arctic to pretend he's on Mars. This cold, dry, pockmarked and essentially lifeless environment is one of the closest to the red planet that you can find on Earth-making it a great practice ground for driving Mars rovers.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about different ethical issues regarding the colonization of Mars. They talk about how we will have to decide what to do if/when we find other life on Mars. Will we let it live, or will we invade its home and eventually kill it? It also talks about what we would do if a private company claimed Mars, which is something that nobody is sure of the consequences of at this point.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many, the idea of space colonization may seem to be an inevitable fact, with Mars seeming to be within reaching distance, with our only obstacle being time, as our technological advances and scientific understanding no longer feel like limiting factors. This may be so, but one question that isn't commonly considered is, should we? Yes, humans have explored and expanded across the globe since our very evolutionary beginnings as a species and this is deeply ingrained in our modern history. It appears to be a universally accepted part of our story that we are explorers, as we revel in the memory of those such as Columbus and Zheng Hu. But just because we've done it before, does that mean we should do it again? Is the argument "because we feel like we should" a valid justification for leaving our planet and coming into contact with another?

Starting from a purely pragmatic stand point, the justification required for space colonization is for the benefit to outweigh the cost. This sounds like a simple enough requirement, but it is incredibly difficult to quantify. If we want this requirement to be fulfilled economically then a space colony would need to export valuables back to earth, or the industry must create jobs on earth. Alternatively we could justify the potential of preserving the human race indefinitely as a great enough benefit. Already, the ambiguity of what aspect we are seeking to fulfill is muddying the waters.

Say we do come to the conclusion that colonizing Mars is beneficial to the human race, how is it going to be orchestrated in a social platform? How will it be decided who gets to be part of this colony? We could rank applications by suitability, prioritize diversity, leave it as a lottery draw, or simply allow the highest bidders to be the only participants. Each of these options raises its own issues, but they all are related to who is being left behind, who has to carry the cost of the expedition and who has to deal with the consequences.

After choosing the participants, can we ethically send them without fully knowing what the consequences may be? As of today, some fears for interplanetary or interstellar expeditions are radiation, the long term effects of zero gravity and the development of children, which will be inevitable if we plan for this group to take up permanent settlement where they are going. We may come up with solutions, but we will never know their capability until they are truly used and tested, which will take years, and humanity does not pride itself on it's patience. Without knowing that these issues, and the plethora of others, are resolved, when we send a colony we can't truly know if we're sending them to Eden or sentencing them to death.

Then there's a question of our ethical obligation toward alien planets. If we find a planet inhabited by life, it is not difficult to believe that our biologies will not be compatible, resulting in either our death or the death of the alien life, be it bacterial, vegetation or even animal. Is this powerful enough to dissuade us? The more likely scenario would be that we find a barren planet within a habitable zone, for instance, Mars. Now imagine that, even though there is currently no life, there is the potential for life to develop. All the chemicals and conditions are ideal, life just hasn't come to fruition yet. Do we have an obligation to restrain ourselves and leave this planet to it's own devices and allow life to have the chance to be.
There's even the argument for leaving a completely lifeless, barren planet with absolutely no potential for life to be left alone. On earth we normally reserve our ethical tendencies for living things, but should we leave barren lands as they are and preserve the universe. Essentially, why do we feel entitled to change anything other than our own immediate environment, Earth.

We may have answers for all of these problems, led by our own moral compass. This is good, and not uncommon, but leads us to the final issue: Whose ethics are we going to use? Our sense of morality is heavily influenced by culture and upbringing, meaning your ethical impulses may be vastly different to those of another on the other side of the globe. There is a strong argument to be made for traversing space as a species as opposed to as nations, but this will require us to have a universally accepted ethical code.

Problems would arise if a private company or nation were to colonize Mars on their own. There would be almost no incentive for them to not stake their claim. The fame and wealth to come along with this achievement would be difficult to ignore, or share. We may need to create an obvious incentive for us all to accept the accomplishment so as not to allow us to separate and disperse as a species. If we end up colonizing Mars as singular entities it is hard not to imagine a future not fraught with conflict. It would therefore be imperative, before any serious space colonization, to have global agreements in place, through the United Nations for example, that would determine the rules and codes of behavior. Such international agreements currently exist on earth for occupation of the Antarctic, which might provide a model to follow.

Creating a universal ethical code may not be at the top of the agenda right now, with steps such as the recently tested EM drive coming to fruition, but it cannot be ignored indefinitely.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many, the idea of space colonization may seem to be an inevitable fact, with Mars seeming to be within reaching distance, with our only obstacle being time, as our technological advances and scientific understanding no longer feel like limiting factors. This may be so, but one question that isn't commonly considered is, should we?

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses some of the main issues Elon Musk needs to address on the non-technical side of things. The article mentions three different issues that could come up. 1)killing off potential Martian life; 2) bringing back Martian life to earth; 3)politics in space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The entirety of Musk's September talk on SpaceX's plans to get the Mars colonization ball rolling in the next decade (transcribed by an energetic Redditor) was recently published online. In it, space nerds of all stripes will find a ton of engineering to marvel at, including a 35-story space vehicle (and even the prospect the intercontinental rockets that could get you from London to New York in under a half an hour), as well as plenty of discussion of the many technical challenges to realize this dream.

But according to Andrew Maynard, the director of the Risk Innovation Lab at Arizona State University, what you won't find in the document is any information about some of the most likely reasons the awe-inspiring project might fail. While Musk is busy building rockets, he's not addressing one of the most significant hurdles facing any attempt to establish humans on the Red Planet -- politics (at least he's not addressing it publicly).

1. Angry astrobiologists

As a species we've spent countless hours worrying about the health of our home ecosystem. Certainly, we'll need to think just as carefully before we go tinkering with whatever may or may not be alive (or once have lived and left a trace) on Mars before we arrive.

"Imagine there was once life on Mars, but in our haste to set up shop there, we obliterate any trace of its existence. Or imagine that harmful organisms exist on Mars and spacecraft inadvertently bring them back to Earth. These are scenarios that keep astrobiologists and planetary protection specialists awake at night," writes Maynard.

Up to now, Musk doesn't seem particularly concerned. Maybe he should be, Maynard suggests: "The last thing Musk needs is a whole community of disgruntled astrobiologists baying for his blood as he tramples over their turf and robs them of their dreams."

2. Ecoterrorism

Not everyone is super psyched about us meddling with our own planet. There is bound to be resistance to the wholesale transformation of another, Maynard warns. Perhaps even violent resistance.

"Musk's long-term vision is to terraform Mars -- reengineer our neighboring planet as " a nice place to be" -- and allow humans to become a multiplanetary species. Sounds awesome -- but not to everyone. I'd wager there will be some people sufficiently appalled by the idea that they decide to take illegal action to interfere with it," he says.

3. Space politics

On the extremely unlikely chance you haven't already noticed, humans haven't been doing too well lately at governing just one planet. Can we handle the challenges of two? And more immediately, can Musk prevent our problematic politics here on Earth from messing with his grand dream?

Clearly, companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin have changed the situation mightily, and this agreement will have to rethought. The rules that come out of those eventual negotiations could hamstring SpaceX's plans, so "Musk needs to make sure he's not left out in the cold," advises Maynard.

While Musk is clearly smart enough to have considered all this already (or at least to pay someone else to consider it), Maynard ends with a word of caution for the SpaceX team: "If enough people feel SpaceX is threatening what they value (such as the environment -- here or there), or disadvantaging them in some way (for example, by allowing rich people to move to another planet and abandoning the rest of us here), they'll make life difficult for the company."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Big (Non-Technical) Reasons Elon Musk's Mars Colonization Plan Might Fail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The entirety of Musk's September talk on SpaceX's plans to get the Mars colonization ball rolling in the next decade (transcribed by an energetic Redditor) was recently published online.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows that there are geneticists researches and plans to create new genes for humans that will fit for space. However, it brngs up a question that shsould humans transform ourselves so radically to fit for space?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In May of 1969, Apollo 10 flew at 25,000 miles per hour. Two months later, the crew of Apollo 11 walked on the moon. Since then, no one has flown so fast nor walked so high. NASA is now preparing for a human mission to Mars, but if our descendants ever shrug off their terrestrial bonds, it won't be Homo sapiens who leaves, but another, more intelligently designed species. We're not fit.

For evolutionary biologists, "fitness" is a measure of natural selection: the average propensity of individuals of a species to survive and reproduce. Anatomically modern humans evolved with their microbial symbionts in Africa around 300,000 to 200,000 years ago and quickly spread all over the globe. We are wonderfully fit for Earth, but space is inimical to our species. It is cold, empty, and airless-and that's the least of it. The real problem is myriad stressors, especially radiation, for which space suits and ships provide little protection.

Earth's magnetic fields and atmosphere shelter us from the ionizing radiation that streams through space like a fatal wind. On the surface of Mars (which lacks a magnetic field or much atmosphere) or aboard a spaceship, long-term exposure to the highly charged energies of galactic cosmic radiation or the sudden flares of solar particle events would kill cells and make them malfunction, or break strands in our DNA and knock out base pairs. Dead or poorly functioning cells cause heart disease or cognitive decline. DNA damage is worse: Cells attempt to repair their own wreckage, but mis-repairs accumulate, leading to mutations that cause cancer and heritable diseases.

Jason Pontin (@jason_pontin) is an Ideas contributor for WIRED. He was formerly the editor in chief and publisher of MIT Technology Review; before that he was the editor of Red Herring. Now he is a senior partner at Flagship Pioneering, a firm in Boston that funds companies that solve problems in health, food, and sustainability. Pontin does not write about Flagship's portfolio companies nor about their competitors.

Long-term spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit and the Van Allen belts exceeds NASA's current bounds of " acceptable risk." Barring an unlikely series of technological tricks-including an expedited route, radiation shielding inside the spacecraft, subsurface quarters on the planet, and a hurried return-our biology is incompatible with a Mars mission. Permanent colonies there or farther out are unthinkable.

But serious biologists, including some who work with NASA, have begun to ask whether humans could be genetically altered for space travel. Their queries prompt more profound questions about our responsibilities and duties in the next phase of human evolution.

Their proposals are also richly ironic. A defining characteristic of our species is our mania for expansion. Other hominins didn't share it, so far as we know; our Neanderthal cousins, with whom we lived for 5,000 years, never left Eurasia. With us, exploration is a mad compulsion. Think of how many frail corracles and canoes set out with only the hope of land to populate all the islands of the seas!

Mars is next. But we may have to employ all our technology to create an inheritor species to satisfy our longings.

As George Church, a Harvard geneticist and leading synthetic biologist, argues: "One likely path for risk reduction in space does seem to involve biological engineering of adult would-be astronauts." He has identified 40-some genes that might be advantageous for long-term spaceflight (and would benefit those who stayed behind, too). His list includes CTNNBI, which confers radiation resistance, LRPD5, which builds adamantine bones, ESPA1 (common in Tibetans), which allows people to live with less oxygen, as well as a host of genes that might make us smarter, more memorious, or less anxious. The menu even includes a gene, ABC11, which endows its possessors with "low-odor production," a friendly trait in a confined space. (A spaceship with standard humans smells like the Harris County Jail, according to one recent inhabitant of the space station.)

Church cofounded Harvard Medical School's Consortium for Space Genetics, along with other prominent biologists like the anti-aging researcher David Sinclair, in order to study human health in space and promote exploration. He imagines "virus-delivered gene therapies, or microbiome or epigenome therapies" that astronauts would take to transform their biologies. "Quite a bit is already known about resistance to radiation, osteoporosis, cancer, and senescence in mice," he says. Church stresses that many of these genes are already targeted by pharmaceutical companies, with drugs in clinical trials. Using gene therapies as a kind of preventative medicine for astronauts isn't so far-fetched.

Gene therapies may make us fitter for space, but if we want to colonize new worlds, humans would want to breed a new race. The geneticist Chris Mason, whose lab at Weil Cornell is participating in a NASA study of how twin astronauts changed when one spent a year in space while another remained on Earth, has proposed a " 500-year plan " for space colonization. Its three main components are expanding our knowledge of genomics, including determining which genes should wear a "do-not-disturb sign," because their alteration would kill or disable us; engineering microbes; and adding, deleting, and modifying genes to create permanent, heritable changes in a population.

In the first stage of his plan, Mason is combining human cells with a gene called Dsup, unique to the indestructible tardigrade, that suppresses DNA breaks from radiation. Tardigrades can survive the vacuum of space; perhaps their genes might make us more fit for space, too. His lab has also created an artificial construct of the gene p53, involved in preventing cancer, which it hopes later to insert into a human cell. Elephants have many copies of p53 and seldom die from cancer; adding copies of p53 to human genomes might protect us from space radiation. Mason's less speculative research includes editing Deionococcus radiodurans, sometimes called " Conan the bacterium," a polyextremophile that can survive cold, dehydration, acid, and very high levels of radiation, the last by rewriting its damaged chromosomes. Mason wants the microbe to live as flora on our skin or in our guts, or on the surfaces of spaceships, protecting us from the deadly rays of space. "The microbiome is an extraordinarily plastic thing," he says.

Some researchers have proposed more science-fictional projects. Harris Wang of Columbia wants to coax human kidney cells to synthesize the nine amino acids our bodies cannot make. A human cell able to synthesize all the organic compounds needed for health would require around 250 new genes, but if our tissues were made of such cells, astronauts could thrive by drinking just sugar water, a liberating adaptation: Missions wouldn't have to lug bulky food or send it on ahead. Other scientists have suggested photosynthetic spacefarers, or editing the personalities of the space corps, so that they fearlessly longed for the high frontier because it was their true terminus.

If humans hope to leave Earth, we'll need to be different. But if it's possible to transform ourselves so radically, should we? Politically, eugenics has been an ugly word: the promise of genocidal tyrants. More generally, would it be ethical to call into existence a new people who had no say in their own design? The case for a race of astronauts is that they would not really be the products of eugenics as the word is ordinarily used: No one with undesired habits or traits would be coerced to have fewer children; no captive populations would be sterilized or worse. As for the new people themselves, none of us chooses our inheritance; we are all the products of our parents. Mason believes there is a categorical imperative to try. The primary goal of his 500-year plan reads: "Establish habitable environments in multiple star systems, to avoid extinction due to a cataclysmic event in one solar system." He explains, "Whatever your moral priorities, you have to exist first."

In Mr. Sammler's Planet, published shortly after the flights of Apollo 10 and 11, Saul Bellow asked, "How long ... will this earth remain the only home of Man? How long? Oh, Lord, you bet! Wasn't it the time-the very hour to go? To blow this great blue, white, green planet, or to be blown from it." Perhaps it's time to think of children who can leave home. Scientists are telling us we should consciously direct our evolution, rather than surrender our fate to time, chance, and death-evolution's historical servants. Of course, the inheritors who left Earth would be as different from sapiens as we are from Neanderthals. "There will be a speciation," says Mason. "It's not if, it's when."

More Great WIRED Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Genetics (and Ethics) of Making Humans Fit for Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In May of 1969, Apollo 10 flew at 25,000 miles per hour. Two months later, the crew of Apollo 11 walked on the moon. Since then, no one has flown so fast nor walked so high.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes over five ethical questions the author has on Mars colonization. It goes over concerns about Tera-forming and governance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For all the attention paid to billionaire Elon Musk's recent announcement that he hopes to get humans to Mars as early as 2024, the early news stories about his efforts focused mostly on the logistics of the effort, including funding, and the fact that the first pioneers to the Red Planet will probably die there. That's not to say that these are unimportant issues: there's no point to thinking about what life on Mars might be like if we can never actually get there or viably inhabit the planet.

But if Musk envisions Mars and other planets as a potential escape hatch for humanity, it's worth thinking about what kind of society we might build as we spread out into the universe. And fiction like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy and the Expanse series pose some important questions we all might want to consider.

There's a race to get to the Red Planet but what kind of society do we want there?

Who will govern Mars? In Robinson's novels, the first effort to colonise Mars is a public-private partnership, with a team of 100 colonists carefully balanced from among the sponsoring countries. Ostensibly they're supposed to report back to governments and international organisations on Earth. But as soon as they get underway, this becomes a vexed issue.

Should the new Martians, who may never return home and who are assuming enormous risk, be able to govern themselves? Will huge multinational corporations flying flags of convenience effectively take over and strip-mine the planet? If Americans set up settlements on Mars, will they be admitted to the union like states? If we don't settle these questions before humans set foot on Mars, we could be set up for ugly conflicts over sovereignty and independence.

How much will we change the planet's atmosphere and surface? Getting to Mars is a sufficiently big challenge. But how will we live when we get there? Will we live in underground settlements that provide us with some protection from radiation? Or will we begin to terraform the planet, changing the atmosphere so that it's breathable and thick enough to make it safe to walk on the surface? How will these choices affect questions of governance?

Robinson's fictional colonists eventually come to realise that without a breathable atmosphere, they'll be vulnerable to all sorts of manipulation from Earth, and that sabotage to habitats could become a powerful weapon of terror. But they also debate whether, having messed up one planet, humans have the right to bend another world to their needs.

Who will go? If tickets to Mars are going to start at 500,000 dollars, clearly some of the people who decide to go to Mars will be very rich. But in order to set up functional societies, we'll have to get all sorts of workers with different kinds of technical expertise there.

So will Mars become a hardship posting, like an oil rig? Or a luxury destination that the hyper-rich use to escape a decaying planet Earth? And what happens if the people who helped build that escape hatch are shut outside once it's complete? Mars could help humanity expand and survive disasters on our home world. But it could also open up new opportunities for even more dramatic social stratification.

1. How will Martian and interplanetary economies function? Bitcoin? Blocks of minerals? Oxygen tanks? How will events on Mars affect the economy on Earth? Mars is going to be expensive to get to, and people are going to want to make money off the planet once they get there, a want that will be intimately connected to the third question on this list.

2. How will human society change if it expands to new planets? This is somewhat theoretical, of course: We can't know who we'll become until we get there, and until generations have passed. But the Expanse books capture increasing human variation, including people who were born in the Asteroid belt and whose physiques mean they couldn't function on Earth.

Both the Expanse and Mars series look at how religion might function in outer space; in the former, Mormons have done incredibly well and are preparing to leave the solar system to spread their faith, while in the latter, Muslim communities begin traversing Martian deserts, governing their convoys in accordance with religious law.

Thinking about who we are, what we might want to be and how new environments will shape our customs and traditions is a fascinating experiment, and an important one.
-By arrangement with The Washington Post Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, October 9th, 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics: Five questions we need to answer before colonising Mars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For all the attention paid to billionaire Elon Musk's recent announcement that he hopes to get humans to Mars as early as 2024, the early news stories about his efforts focused mostly on the logistics of the effort, including funding, and the fact that the first pioneers to the Red Planet will probably die there.

# data[].attributes.body
This article suggests ethical questions we must consider before colonizing Mars. The possibly of life already present as well as contaminating the Martian environment due to the presence of humans are two important concerns some believe must be examined before leaving Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

The race to colonize Mars is underway, meaning many of us may witness humankind setting foot on the red planet before we die.

But one astronomy professor thinks we should slow down and figure out if there is life on Earth's planetary neighbor before our exploration destroys it.

"If there's any kind of active biology on Mars - no matter how primitive - the first step is we have to find it and understand it," said David Weintraub, who teaches at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

"Then, we could try to make enlightened decisions about what the right thing is for us to do or not to do."

More: How far into deep space will Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster actually go?

More: Blue Origin books New Glenn rocket launch contracts

He makes the case to tap the brakes and investigate further as NASA and billionaire-backed ventures like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin make ambitious plans to race ahead.

David A. Weintraub, Professor of Astronomy in the Dept. of Physics & Astronomy. (Vanderbilt University / Steve Green) (Photo: Photo by Steve Green/Vanderbilt University)

Weintraub wrote about the ethical quandaries that lay in front of us in his newly released book " Life on Mars: What to Know Before We Go." In it, he explains the history of our long fascination with the fourth planet in our solar system and the search for Martians.

Knowing life exists before going

Like the race to the moon in the last century, the thought of colonizing Mars in our lifetimes is exciting, Weintraub said. But we are blinded by the thrill of it and forget to ask the necessary moral questions and weigh the consequences of landing on the planet before we know life exists, he said.

"I'm hoping we at least have a conversation about that before it's too late," Weintraub said.

For centuries, humans have studied our close neighbor. Philosophical ideas and pop culture have fueled our fascination, too. But Weintraub argues that humans may have misled themselves for hundreds of years into thinking life exists on Mars because we assume the planet is more Earth-like than it really is.

He thinks the possibility of life on the red planet is small, but it is not zero. If it does exist, life is expected to be microscopic. But finding life on Mars would be a huge discovery regardless of size.

"The knowledge would be so valuable in understanding ourselves and where we come from and about the possibility of life in the universe beyond the Earth and Mars," Weintraub said. "I think we ought to try to get that information if it exists before it's no longer available."

If it's sterile, 'why not go?'

Slowing down the space race offers more time to learn, investigate and explore from afar whether life exists, Weintraub said.

If we go before we know, humans could contaminate Mars, Weintraub said. Colonizing the planet and altering its climate and environment to make it habitable for humans may destroy what life exists without us knowing it, he said.

"If Mars is sterile, then why not go?" Weintraub said. "We want to go. It's right there."

Regardless of his position, Weintraub thinks human footprints will be on Mars by the close of the 21st century. Even if we were to find life on the planet and spacefaring nations were to put a Mars travel ban in place, someone will find a way because humans have an innate drive to explore, he said.

"My bet is that somebody in their basement will build a rocket and go to Mars on their own," Weintraub said.

Reach Holly Meyer at hmeyer@tennessean.com or 615-259-8241 and on Twitter @HollyAMeyer.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2018/05/14/race-colonize-mars-but-should-we-go-astronomy-professor-david-weintraub-raises-questions/536153002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The race to colonize Mars is on - but should we go? An astronomy professor raises ethical questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE The race to colonize Mars is underway, meaning many of us may witness humankind setting foot on the red planet before we die. But one astronomy professor thinks we should slow down and figure out if there is life on Earth's planetary neighbor before our exploration destroys it.

# data[].attributes.body
This short article summarizes two separate studies that run through multiple ethical concerns. The first study is about some of the ethical concerns regarding actual colonization while the second study is about childbirth on the red planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Assuming we can successfully transport humans and supplies to Mars in the future, is the next step of full colonization ethical? The issue of ethics is one that doesn't show up as often when discussing the transportation of astronauts to the red planet, It's more of a space law and policy concern. However, when it comes to settling down on the planet, raising a family, mom, dad, kids, grandkids, the ethical issues with colonization of the planet become apparent.

In this post I'd like to examine two articles of similar view points in the ethics surrounding the colonization of Mars. The first, a case study conducted by Julia Sullivan in the Blue Marble State Institute of Science on the ethics of colonization. And the second, another case study focusing more specifically on the ethics surrounding raising a child in space conducted by Haley Schuster and Steven L. Peck.

In Sullivan's study, she examines multiple pressing issues regarding the ethics of colonization. The three main categories that I was able to deduce from the study are as follows: selection of candidates, health consequences, and ethical obligations. When colonizing Mars, who gets to go? Is it open to the public? Must you pay to go? Must you be selected based on health and other factors? All these questions contribute to the ethical concerns that could come with colonizing Mars. Additionally, the exact consequences of living on Mars have not been fully examined yet. How the environment, radiation, and other factors could impact the health of child development and growth. How it could affect the elderly in terms of health. Since a majority of the studies have been conducted on essentially perfect individuals, theres no telling the health impacts that could occur to imperfect individuals. Or would imperfect individuals just be denied the opportunity to go to Mars? Lastly, the general ethical obligations regarding life forms must be examined. If life is found on Mars, do we take over and colonize? The ethical and moral obligations that come with being human must always be considered. There will always be multiple view points regarding the many ethical concerns that come with Mars colonization.

Focussing more on the ethical implications regarding childbirth, Schuster and Peck's study expresses the many concerns that can occur with this. Pregnancy in space can be extremely dangerous and life threatening. For one, a pregnancy can cause a mother to consume much more resources that anticipated which could be detrimental to the survival of the entire crew/ colony. Even the measures could be taken for pregnancy on the surface of Mars, pregnancies that occur during the 180 day travel to the planet could negatively impact the well being of the entire crew. Not to mention, the health of the child itself could be extremely negatively impacted because of development and birth in space. This causes us to explore the ethical questions associated with pregnancy during the journey to Mars and on the surface of the planet. Should pregnancies occur on earth only? Should there be required forms of contraception? Will the current debates about abortion still apply to women in space?

Sources

Schuster, Haley, and Steven L. Peck. "Mars Ain't the Kind of Place to Raise Your Kid: Ethical Implications of Pregnancy on Missions to Colonize Other Planets." Life Sciences, Society and Policy, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Dec. 2016, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996799/.

Sullivan, Julia. "Ethics of Space Colonization." Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, www.bmsis.org/ethics-of-space-colonization/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Assuming we can successfully transport humans and supplies to Mars in the future, is the next step of full colonization ethical? The issue of ethics is one that doesn't show up as often when discussing the transportation of astronauts to the red planet, It's more of a space law and policy concern.

# data[].attributes.body
According to the article, non-medical research involving humans does not need to be subjected to ethics committee review. This means that there is no standardized safe guard put into place. Another issue is the very public broadcasting of the participants (reality-TV). This brings questions of confidentiality and privacy which will be broken if media is involved.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777622.2017.1288512?scroll=top&needAccess=true&

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains that the mission becomes ethical given the explorers consent. However, the article explains that there are ethical concerns with the amount of risk involved with sending people on a one-way trip to Mars under the Mars One mission. The article compares the risk involved to those soldiers face in war, raising the question what are we prepared to sacrifice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you decide whether putting human life at risk is the right thing to do? By Laurie Zoloth.

# data[].attributes.body
Mars One is working on a way to send a group of colonists to Mars, permanently, but this raises a lot of questions about how well people will be able to handle it, and how well they will be treated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mars One is back in the news. On Tuesday the company held a press conference in Washington DC to announce that it is working with two other companies - Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite Technology - to launch a robotic mission to Mars in 2018. The idea is that this unmanned mission will help lay the ground for a small team of astronauts to travel to the red planet in 2022 and set up a base, never to return.

Three months ago I wrote about some of the psychological problems that the astronauts will face. Chief among these are risks of mental illness caused by prolonged social isolation, a lifetime of confinement within the space of two hotel rooms, and constant surveillance day and night, 365 days a year, to ensure broadcast revenues.

So far Mars One has said little about how it will address these concerns, apart from vague assurances that it will select astronauts based on "resilience" and the right "attitude". Asked in a Guardian Q&A on Tuesday how the company will prepare volunteers for a lifetime of exile, CEO Bas Lansdorp stated only that the colonists will "spend extended periods of time in a copy of the Mars outpost here on Earth every year" and that they will be equipped with "skills to deal with all kinds of situations".

None of these answers comes close to addressing the specific dangers of isolation, confinement and surveillance - let alone how these factors could combine to cause mental breakdown. When quizzed on how Mars One will address cases of mental illness that occur 140m miles from the nearest mental health service, Lansdorp offered only "that they will exchange regular video mails with the support team on Earth". Precisely what Lansdorp has in mind can only be guessed, but the benefits of online psychotherapy remain unclear, and automated psychotherapy software is only about half as effective as the real thing.

From Lansdorp's Q&A for the Guardian and the press briefing we learn nothing reassuring, but much to raise further worries. Asked what kind of research the colonists will conduct on Mars, Lansdorp replied that they will provide an "interesting research topic in itself for physiologists". This indicates that the colonists themselves will be the subjects of research, which raises whole new concerns about ethics.

Since the 1960s - and following the Nuremberg trials - it has been standard practice for researchers to follow certain ethical standards in the treatment of human subjects. These rules include the requirement to submit research proposals to an ethics committee for prior approval, explain clearly the risks of any procedures to potential research subjects, before obtaining their informed consent. Since Mars One now admits to planning research on the colonists themselves, the mission becomes bound to these same standards.

Mars One may not meet these conditions. As far as we know, no ethics committee has considered the Mars One plan or the risks it poses to the colonists. These risks will need to be communicated clearly before volunteers are recruited to take part in the mission.

Beyond questions of psychology, questions of physical illness also remain unanswered. Living permanently within the lower gravity of Mars will reduce muscle and bone density, and radiation will increase the risk of cancer. How Mars One plans to treat these conditions a world away from specialised oncology or orthopaedic facilities is a mystery. As Lansdorp puts it: "The exact details are still to be determined."

Is it any defence that terrestrial explorers have historically suffered similar harsh conditions? The argument, made by Lansdorp in the Q&A, is weak. For one thing, the psychological conditions are not the same. Many terrestrial explorers believed they were coming home or settling in a land of freedom and new opportunities - certainly not a life in prison followed by an early grave. Many of them did suffer horrendous conditions, but these would be unacceptable in the modern era. If you have any doubts about that, ask yourself this: come 2028, would you allow your children to watch the Mars One colonists suffering or dying on live television?

Opposing Mars One isn't an issue of being squeamish, risk averse or cowardly. A return mission to Mars by humans is an exciting and necessary project. But we need to be smart and assign this task to public space agencies that have a good track record in this field. History tells us that space disasters weaken the political will for further human space exploration, so there will be long-term consequences.

Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is why any of Mars One's sponsors are willing to contribute financially to this enterprise. Mars One should be applauded for succeeding in one area at least: corporate relations.
Chris Chambers is a senior research fellow in cognitive neuroscience at the school of psychology, Cardiff University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars One has ethical questions to answer about one-way trip to red planet | Chris Chambers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mars One is back in the news. On Tuesday the company held a press conference in Washington DC to announce that it is working with two other companies - Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite Technology - to launch a robotic mission to Mars in 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
Scout Lindberg
If we are going to establish a permanent mars colony, then reproduction is an issue we must handle and it might even be necessary for the livelihood of a base. However, huge complications can come with giving birth in space. Because of low gravity conditions and more exposure to radiation, miscarriage, birth defects, and cancer may be more prevalent in Mars children. Additionally, because of a potentially small population, partners may need to be "matched" to avoid genetic issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The surface of Mars isn't exactly what you'd call the ideal place to grow up.

Giant dust devils prowl the dry, barren landscape. The atmosphere is much thinner than here on Earth, the gravity isn't quite the same either, and - as Sir Elton John put it in 1972 - "it's cold as hell."

But a future, self-sustaining human colony on Mars is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Experts believe we could be establishing settlements on the planet within a few decades, and if SpaceX founder Elon Musk has his way, humans will set foot on the surface within the next six years.

That raises big questions about how we will survive, and thrive, on a world so different from our own.
WATCH: NASA to send 'Mars Helicopter' along on agency's Mars 2020 rover mission

Because the trip to Mars is both dangerous and complex, one of the keys to success over the long term will be reproduction, according to a new paper published in the journal Futures.

The researchers behind the paper, based in Poland, Brazil and the United States, argue that it's high time we started thinking about sex and baby-making on the red planet, and about the problems and moral dilemmas that it could present.
READ MORE: Footage shows Mars simulation mission in remote Oman desert
Among other things, kids will be needed simply to keep the community viable in case of a disaster, an outbreak of disease or another event that wipes out a bunch of colonists.

"A minimum viable human population for an extra-terrestrial colony to survive throughout time
should include about 5,000 individuals," the paper notes, adding that it might be safer to aim closer to 5,800.

Physical hurdles

The challenges will likely start even before conception.

Humans evolved to reproduce on Earth, so while the decreased gravity (Mars gravity is 0.38 g compared to 1 g here) might be fun to bounce around in, it's unclear how it would affect human sperm and eggs.
WATCH: Introducing TESS, NASA's newest planet hunter
But we do know that radiation from the sun, which is greater on Mars, is really bad for those cells.

"Radiation is known to be deleterious for adults and especially for reproductive cells, developing embryos and fetuses, and is already considered a major health hazard to astronauts," the paper explains.

After conception, pregnant women will continue to be exposed to these conditions. The mother's immune system may be temporarily compromised, increasing the risk of infections or other illnesses taking hold and then spreading to other people in the colony. Miscarriage, birth defects and cancers may become more prevalent.
READ MORE: Over 35? Yes, you can still have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby
By the time the first Martian moms complete their training, travel to Mars and conceive, they may be older than 40. That also comes with increased risk.

"The process of having children can be overwhelming, especially in a dangerous Martian environment," the researchers acknowledge.

"Psychological support to families should increase success not only in giving birth to healthy children, but also would assist families in the process of raising (them)."

Ethical concerns

Babies conceived on Mars are going to be born into a new world, the paper explains, and that new world may not follow the same ethical, religious or moral guidelines that we've established on our home planet.
WATCH: David Saint-Jacques is Canada's next astronaut in space
In a tiny community where the surrounding environment is basically trying to kill you and every person must contribute, the survival of the group may become more important than the survival of each individual.

"The idea to protect life at every stage of development may not be suited to a Mars colony," the researchers predict. "We expect that the abortion policy would be liberal in comparison to Earth."

That might mean that few, if any, children would be born with any form of disability that can be detected in the womb. Genetic counselling and matching of partners might become widespread, with careful selection of parents to make sure they are not even distantly related.
READ MORE: Scientists alter human embryo DNA, but does this open the door for designer babies?
While it might make people on Earth uncomfortable, Martian colonists may start to impose new or more restrictive criteria for what's considered a "valuable offspring," the paper suggests, and even restrict reproductive rights "to prevent traits incompatible with life in Mars from emerging in subsequent generations."

A push for genetic editing to prevent serious medical conditions is already emerging on Earth.

"Such strategy should not be mistaken for eugenics," the researchers argue, which involves trying to produce racially or genetically "pure" humans.

A new species?

If humanity can get over the first bumps and manage to establish a permanent colony with healthy children, the researchers note that something interesting might start to happen over time.
WATCH: Mars InSight spacecraft launches for Mars
If we begin selecting for or encouraging Mars-friendly traits in newborns through genetic engineering (which, again, may become more morally acceptable), a new subspecies of human might eventually emerge. They'd be better adapted to Mars' environment, but might find living on Earth pretty uncomfortable.

"In such a scenario, new ethical challenges arise from the evolution of a new kind of human species who will possess a new nature and, consequently, possibly new moral duties and rights when compared with people living on Earth."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making babies on Mars won't be easy, or ethically straightforward

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The surface of Mars isn't exactly what you'd call the ideal place to grow up. Giant dust devils prowl the dry, barren landscape. The atmosphere is much thinner than here on Earth, the gravity isn't quite the same either, and - as Sir Elton John put it in 1972 - "it's cold as hell."

# data[].attributes.body
This article touches on why going to the Martian planet would not automatically mean we are going to have a Utopian society. The way our economies work and the way we consume goods on Earth will affect this planet and how we live on it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elon Musk, inventor and CEO of SpaceX, recently shared his vision to build the first human city on Mars within a decade. For the cost of a home, The Interplanetary Transport System would take you and 100 tons of cargo to the Red Planet.

In 2013, the Kepler spacecraft found nearly 40 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy. As NASA explores the heavens for more habitable planets, Musk has mused about his "duty to maintain the light of consciousness" via space colonization. Last year, astronauts were able to taste fresh food grown in space, and NASA continues to invest in Veggie technology, a critical component of space transportation. A multi-planetary species is one that lives on more than one planet, and the work to make humans multi-planetary has begun.

Should we take ourselves to other planets? Human rationality and values have woven dark, damaged, all-powerful systems into the tapestry of civilization. Most notably among these systems is capitalism and its partner, consumerism. Do we see ourselves moving planet to planet, sucking life out of each one for our own survival? If we are to impress ourselves onto this universe, we must solemnly inquire about our impact on it.

Capitalism and consumerism have become the epitome of perpetuating systems that adversely turn our species parasitic. Consumption has increased the size of our landfills while decreasing the ethical standards we expect from businesses. Industry and mindless consumerism intertwined to create our current state. Now, they must disentangle and consumerism must lead industry out of planetary and ethical degradation. Mindful consumerism is how we can turn business into a force for good. A mass-scale shift in consumer spending will inevitably create a value-shift in capitalism, which will upend modern civilization's parasitic effect on this planet.

The dawn of modern consumerism began in the 1940s, not even a century ago. Fossil-led supply has grown in tandem with advertising-fueled consumerism. Industry won't become a part of the solution unless society creates strong market demand for sustainability and social impact.

Robert M. Pirsig, who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, an investigation into the metaphysics of modern rationality, notes that the litmus test for a functioning machine is the satisfaction and tranquility it provides the user. Humans bring neither satisfaction nor tranquility to Earth and its life forms. Instead, we've developed systems that extract great value from the Earth and give little back. Pirsig's solution to when a machine is broken gives us two paths forward: We can change ourselves or change our machine.

Humans bring neither satisfaction nor tranquility to Earth and its life forms.

In our current collective state, we would be a burden on other planets and forms of life. We must change ourselves urgently and then pass on higher sensibilities of consciousness, rationality, ethics and values to future generations to build upon. The exponential pace of technology demands that the time for root-shifts in our structures is now, as this will be nearly impossible as a multi-planetary species.

Mindful or conscious consumerism is the application of personal economics toward goods or services that entrench environmental and social solutions into their business models. Conscious consumerism occurs when consumers align their wallets with their values. When mindless consumption is traded for mindful consumerism, we create ethics where there previously were none. The shift toward conscious consumption is led by millennials; in a global Nielsen survey, 73 percent of young respondents said they are willing to pay more for sustainable goods.

Capitalism needs conscious consumerism to support companies whose supply chains, profit structures, product, packaging and more express value in their eco and ethical impact. When these businesses make a profit, they set in motion a perpetuating system of positive change that, unlike charity or CSR, is entangled within its rationality rather than a byproduct of it.

I grew up in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India because of my father's work in impact investing with the World Bank. As I bid farewell to the majestic spirit of southern Africa six years after calling it "home" and celebrated Tet in Vietnam, I was humbled by my front-row seat to the power of capitalism to make meaningful environmental and social impact. Consumers can and should support businesses that lift communities out of poverty and add value to the environment.

While the trend toward conscious consumerism has already begun, it hasn't generated nearly enough momentum to keep up with our pace of environmental destruction. Nielsen reports that in 2015, sales of consumer goods from brands with a commitment to sustainability grew more than 4 percent, while those without such a commitment grew less than 1 percent.

Conscious consumerism occurs when consumers align their wallets with their values.

Across industries, businesses that are good for the planet and its life are experiencing growth. Innovation and entrepreneurialism have engendered new business models and birthed creative solutions to our greatest crisis. There hasn't been a more exciting and dynamic time to exercise one's values upon budgets. In food, local and organically grown produce continue to become more accessible. The cost of solar energy is reducing. Faster change is required for us to see large enough shifts in consumer spending that will meaningfully combat our urgent environmental and social crisis. The power lies within the daily choices of average consumers who choose what and how to buy.

History will look back at us and wonder why we didn't make more conscious choices about what we consume in order to save our ecosystem. As those fortunate to have means and choices in consumption, will we arm ourselves with knowledge and values to wield our economics for our planet, rationality and ethics? When we make our next purchase, will we support those parts of the solution? Will we avoid the simple Google search to locate ethical, sustainable alternatives to our traditional toiletries or clothing, or will we continue our current habits due to convenience, cost and lack of knowledge or will?

Do we deserve to become multi-planetary? Let us become productive participants in the glorious dance of life. If we can dream of the insurmountable task of becoming multi-planetary, then surely we can fathom expending the energy, resources and willpower that come with making mindful purchase and waste decisions.

If we can succeed in preserving our current planet and its ecosystems, we save human consciousness and the integrity of our values. As Elon Musk describes his desire to keep the "light of consciousness" alive, I press that we also ensure it's brightly illuminated and worthy of traversing this magnificent universe.

Featured Image: MARK GARLICK/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elon Musk, inventor and CEO of SpaceX, recently shared his vision to build the first human city on Mars within a decade. For the cost of a home, The Interplanetary Transport System would take you and 100 tons of cargo to the Red Planet.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the problems with reproducing in space. Radiation and other issues may force us to change the DNA of the people/babies there to help make them thrive. We may make a new species of human.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NASA

If humans want to establish a long-term colony on Mars or elsewhere in space, we'll eventually need to be able to have children there.

But reproducing in the vastly different Martian environment would be extremely complicated.

All of the health effects people experience in space- exposure to radiation and changes in bone, muscle, and bodily fluids - would have effects on a developing fetus or young child.

We may someday decide to edit human DNA to give people traits that could help them thrive on Mars.

Eventually, that could lead to creating new species of humans.

This tiny blue rock upon which we hurtle through the vastness of space is the perfect home for us.

We can breathe the air and drink the water - both of which are essential to life as we know it. Our atmosphere protects us from radiation that could mutate our DNA and cut our lives short. We and the other creatures on Earth have evolved to function according to the planet's gravity, which affects our bones, muscles, and the fluids inside our body.

NASA and other space agencies - as well as individuals like Elon Musk- are actively working towards creating settlements on Mars. But before humans can attempt to establish long-term outposts on Mars or elsewhere in space, we have a lot to consider. Beyond the logistics of space travel, food, water, breathable air, and radiation, there's the question of human reproduction.

A paper newly published in the journal Futures describes just how complicated that could be.

Since Mars is the likely first location for a long-term populated outpost, the researchers behind the paper decided to analyze some physical and social problems that we'd encounter in trying to have babies on the red planet.

"A manned mission to Mars and the establishment of the first human settlement in outer space was once a mere figment of science fiction but is now being planned and expected to take place in the following 20 years," the authors wrote. "We assume that human reproduction in a Mars settlement will be necessary for the long-term success of an outer space mission."

Could there ever be new generations of Martians?

Any human settlement on Mars will be initially populated by crews from Earth. But at some point, if we truly want to have a large long-term Martian colony with a sustainable population, kids are going to need to be born there.

Whether or not it's possible to have children in the Martian environment is still unknown.

We know that when astronauts spend time in space, it has serious effects on their bodies. A lack of gravity causes body fluids to shift, which can change and impair vision as pressure changes affect the eyeball. Bones become less dense and muscles can atrophy, though regular exercise can help reduce these effects. People get taller as they stretch out, uncompressed. Then there's radiation exposure, which affects DNA and could increase cancer risk.

Being on Mars wouldn't be exactly like being on the International Space Station, which is where most of this information comes from. But Mars still only has about 38% of the gravity we experience on Earth.

We don't know how these changes would affect reproductive cells, fertilization, embryonic development, the developing fetus, or growing children.

It's possible that children born and raised on Mars might have an easier time adapting to the requirements of life there, since it would be the world they would grow up in. But what those adaptations would look like are anyone's guess.

Many of these questions can be studied, especially with animal models. But they'll be important issues to investigate before any Mars colonization plans take shape.

Ethical questions

Assuming humans do someday try to reproduce in space, a host of other intriguing questions arise.

One is how big a population needs to be to truly sustain itself. According to the paper's authors, accepted estimates of the minimum size for a self-sustaining group range from 5,000 to 5,800 individuals. But they write that a Martian colony may need to have a larger population due to the extreme nature of the environment.

Then there's the issue of reproductive rights. Since living on Mars isn't going to be easy, the authors write that there should be genetic counseling available for couples to make sure that traits that could help people survive on Mars are encouraged in the reproductive process. At the same time, they write that liberalized abortion policies would be important, since pregnancies could pose high risks to mothers and environmental conditions could make serious birth defects more likely.

People who do choose to have children should be carefully supported through that process, according to the paper. That support system would need to extend beyond birth to help parents cope with the stresses that come with Martian children.

The authors also bring up an even bigger question: how much we should use technology to transform humans living in space.

Potential solutions

It's possible that some of us carry genetic traits that make us better suited to life on Mars than other people. Such traits may make it easier for our bodies to adapt to reduced gravity, for example, or make us less susceptible to cancer or disability caused by radiation.

A Martian colony might encourage people with those genetic traits to pass them on.

But it also might be possible to use genetic editing technologies to give people these traits and to modify DNA in other ways that make it easier for humans to survive in space. Genetic editing tools like CRISPR, which can find and replace sections of DNA, could allow doctors to modify embryos conceived via in vitro fertilization to give them these space-life-friendly traits.

Eventually, it might turn out that the "humans" who thrive best on Mars don't much resemble people on Earth.

Science fiction authors have wrestled with this idea. In "The Expanse," authors Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck (pen name: James S. A. Corey) describe how "belters," residents of human settlements in the asteroid belt, are different from Earth-born humans. They have elongated bodies uncompressed by gravity, and their bones can't support human weight when exposed to the crushing pressure of life on Earth. It's possible that people born and raised on Mars would have a similarly difficult time adapting to life on Earth.

It's even feasible that humanity might speciate: develop new species that evolve out of Homo sapiens, according to the authors of the paper. They say that's unlikely to happen naturally, but could happen if humans wind up heavily genetically engineered to better survive on different planets.

Is escaping to Mars really a possibility?

In the paper, the authors quote Stephen Hawking, who once said: "I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as it could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonizing other planets."

But this paper shows how complicated that insurance policy would be. And that analysis is yet another reminder that we need to ensure that humanity can continue to survive on its home planet.

Astronaut Mae Jemison leads an organization called 100-Year Starship, a NASA- and DARPA-funded project that launched in 2011 to tackle the questions involved in making humans capable of voyaging beyond our solar system within the next 100 years.

But as Jemison explained to me in 2016, most of us are already on the starship that's best suited for carrying us through space: it's Earth.

"We're going to be on this planet," she said.

That's not to say that we shouldn't settle on Mars - it's important to understand how we could survive on new worlds. But we shouldn't avoid tackling simpler issues like climate change in order to keep humanity's first home habitable, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Having sex and reproducing in space comes with serious scientific and ethical problems. We may need to create a new species of human to make it work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA and other space agencies - as well as individuals like Elon Musk - are actively trying to work towards settlements on Mars. But for a long term colony on Mars to be sustainable, we'll need to be able to have babies there. And that's complicated.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses many different ethical questions in colonizing mars. The  main one  that they talk about is how we can avoid bringing microbes, that could potentially destroy mars, to mars. On the other hand, it also brings up the possibility that us being there, could turn a "dead" world" into a world where life thrives, is that really a concern?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are many thought-provoking moments in the new movie The Martian.

From the nature of human endurance to questions of science and politics, it's a film that deserves the success it has gained (how many films can throw around terms like hexadecimal and Hohmann Transfer like you already know them).

But unspoken, behind the film, is a truly profound question about humanity's next steps into the solar system.

At one point in the film, the stranded astronaut Mark Watney (played by Matt Damon) must figure out how to heat his rover for long trips without draining the battery. He solves the problem by digging up the radioactive generator the crew used on their way to Mars, which they had buried for safety reasons. It was at this moment that I remembered the long, simmering debate about the ethics of colonizing Mars (or any of the other worlds in the solar system).

Even if NASA never thought to include a radioactive generator on a Mars mission, the question of us, our stuff, and untouched planets would still remain. We can discuss this issue at three levels:

1) Is it OK for us to disturb these worlds with our machines (rovers, etc.)?

2) Is it OK to disturb them with human explorers?

3) Is it OK to develop full scale human "colonies" on these worlds?

It's important to note that no matter what we do in terms of sterilization, it's possible that some of Earth's microbes may survive the journey across space and land with our rovers. NASA spends a lot of time worrying about this. They even have an Office of Planetary Protection that develops protocols for cleaning up the machines we send to Mars.

The main reason for planetary protection is not ethics but, rather, science. If we are looking for life on other worlds, we need to be careful we don't become contaminated with bacteria we brought with us - or contaminate Earth with something from another world via "sample return" missions.

While these scientific questions are important in their own right, the question we are asking about today is much broader and much deeper.

It is possible that Mars still has microbes scraping out a living in its nooks and crannies (underground would be the best bet). So, what are our responsibilities to that life if it exists?

Must we be sure that human exploration poses no planetary risk to potential Martian life before we set up shop and begin exploration? Consider the fact that once human beings are on Mars, we'll be trailing some parts of our (or Earth's) microbiome wherever we go. What if our activity introduced new life on the planet even at the lowest levels? What if our activity causes the death of some life already there even at the bacterial level?

Is that OK?

Looking further into the future, we hit the really big question. What if we reach the point where large-scale human habitation of Mars becomes possible? Do we have a right to change a planet where we did not evolve? On the other hand, aren't we citizens of the solar system just as much as the microbes on Mars? If we bring the possibility of turning Mars from a dead world (or a world with a very thin biosphere) into one where life thrives, isn't that a kind of moral imperative, too?

What do you think?

Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science." You can keep up with more of what Adam is thinking on Facebook and Twitter:@adamfrank4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is It Moral To Explore, And Colonize, Mars?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many thought-provoking moments in the new movie The Martian. From the nature of human endurance to questions of science and politics, it's a film that deserves the success it has gained (how many films can throw around terms like hexadecimal and Hohmann Transfer like you already know them).