How will the settlement of Mars be viewed in a historical context? How will it be rated against the Apollo Moon landings, or against Yuri Gagarin's first spaceflight? I think it will be judged the true beginning of the space age, of far more significance than Armstrong's one small step. That sounds a large claim; how can anything eclipse mankind's 'giant leap' on the Moon?
I don't want in any way to denigrate Apollo, or NASA or America's achievement. Both those on the ground who built and managed Apollo and the astronauts themselves were true heroes in the story of the human race. But the Moon landings can already now be seen as short-termism writ large. The time spent on the Moon was very small. There was no follow-up. There was no development of our long-term capacity for human exploration.
A settlement on Mars could be different. First, it could be a permanent and expanding human presence on another world. Secondly, it could be a genuine proving ground for developing the means and experience to explore or settle the rest of the solar system.
But the historical judgement; why do I think the significance of Mars will eclipse our previous achievements? Just consider the European discovery of the Americas. That has long been considered a key milestone in the human story. But what is seen as the crucial date? 'In Fourteen Hundred And Ninety Two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue....' That is not just a useful mnemonic verse; it underlines the weight we give to the event. The European adventure in the New World, with all its massive impact on subsequent history, dates from Columbus. That is because the European settlement then proved permanent and irreversible. The fact that Leif Ericson found America half a millennium earlier, and that viking settlement gained a temporary toehold there, is now proven. It is not something we forget,: but it is a footnote in history because the achievement was not permanent.
So, I fear history will neglect to some extent all our achievements so far in space. The settlement of Mars I expect to be different. If we can cling on there and make something of our new world, then centuries from now we will rate our first footsteps on the red planet alongside that first voyage of Columbus. In that context, the name of Neil Armstrong may be seen more in the light of a Leif Ericson figure, heroic though his achievement will continue to be.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Credo 2
One of the main aims of this blog is to raise basic social, economic, legal and ethical issues associated with the colonisation of Mars. I feel these often get scant consideration in the mainstream media. Concentration on technical and logistical questions is important and I try to cover these too, but if we do not start considering the project at the fundamental human and philosophical levels as soon as possible then we will be building up a backlog of thinking which will become increasingly difficult to address adequately.
I hope some of the posts here are meeting this aim, at least to the extent of stimulating further thought. As I have said before, I would welcome comment and debate. Just one point before concluding, I am uncomfortable with part of the nomenclature of the topic. Although I have used them myself, the terms colony and colonisation leave me uneasy. Too many adverse connotations. I prefer the phrase 'settlement of Mars' to any other.
I hope some of the posts here are meeting this aim, at least to the extent of stimulating further thought. As I have said before, I would welcome comment and debate. Just one point before concluding, I am uncomfortable with part of the nomenclature of the topic. Although I have used them myself, the terms colony and colonisation leave me uneasy. Too many adverse connotations. I prefer the phrase 'settlement of Mars' to any other.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Returning To Finance
Finance is really the nub of the question of a Mars colony, so it is worth returning to. The Elon Musk colony proposal needs further consideration because it asks us to consider funding as if it were a single proposition. It is hard for outsiders to see it as such. There is the development of a transportation system and there is the establishment and development of a colony, The issue of transport is a natural one for what is essentially a spacecraft and rocketry business like Space X to address. But to make a case for carrying large numbers of people to Mars, as a commercial business you need to be able to forecast some means of eventually turning a profit. For this Elon Musk turns to his 80,000 tickets, but clearly you cannot sell tickets to a colony that does not exist. As I have said, Musk gets round this problem by treating the costs of developing a means of transport and constructing a colony as though they were simply a package deal. Again, that seems a little simplistic and , frankly, somewhat unhelpful. Given that spaceflight is becoming a competitive business, the idea that one party both develops a transport system and creates a captive market (captive in the most absolute sense possible) is a little unsettling. It is also not necessarily the best way of generating finance because the funding mechanisms available to the transport side and those possible for the colony itself may be different.
When I was involved in privatisation issues in the UK Treasury in the 1980s, one of the most crucial issues in creating frameworks for competition was to differentiate between delivery mechanism and product. Within the public sector these were often combined into a pure monopoly (and sometimes a monopsony as well). It can make economic sense to allow a single distribution provider but only when there is plurality in the supply of a product or service and careful regulation of the distributive function. In a sense what we are seeing with the competitive supply and crewing of the international space station that is underway in the US is the beginning of the privatisation of space. In this too we need to ensure that delivery mechanisms do not become monopolistic. And when we look at Mars we need to be quite clear that any colony is not solely a by- product of a delivery mechanism but a human entity and, crucially, a new and vulnerable market in itself.
This is not to be critical of what Elon Musk has in mind but just to suggest that the fundamentals need very careful thought. In particular, I think that organising the creation and development of a colony as an enterprise formally distinct from Space X's rocketry and spacecraft program could open up some important funding mechanisms for a colony.
The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once wrote a novel about the first expeditions to the stars. He chose as the organiser of the flights a charitable foundation called, appropriately, 'The Long Range Foundation' (LRF). Amusingly the LRF had been set up to take forward research on projects which had no immediate prospect of profit but which might eventually prove beneficial to mankind in general. Embarrassingly for its charitable status, the LRF's research projects kept making money, so it opted for the star project as a means of getting rid of some of the loot! This is not just a sidetrack but a lead into the possibility of an additional means of funding the setting up of a Mars colony. I think a real LRF (or some such name) could attract finance from those seeking tax advantages and from genuine philanthropists for the development, design, and construction of life-support, radiological protection, hydroponics, soil farming, power supply, and habitat structures etc for a settlement. I cannot see that this charitable funding route would be available to Space X as the seller of tickets to Mars, though I see nothing to stop it from making donations to such a foundation itself.
On the funding of the transportation system, it has concerned me how much seems dependent on ticket sales, which can hardly be expected to roll in at a pace till the project is ready to start landing people on Mars. So I think it would be worth exploring the early sale of ticket options. The seat price quoted by Elon Musk is extra-ordinarily cheap, particularly when you consider the prices that wealthy tourists have already paid just to get into space (let alone the outrageous, highway robbery level, ticket prices Russia is now charging each NASA astronaut for a ride to the space station). There could be quite a market for early seat reservations for the trip to Mars, particularly if they could be on-sold. I think, say, $100,000 per reservation might generate considerable interest. The $100,000 would be part of the eventual cost of a seat, so no-one would pay more (except in opportunity costs). But some crucial up-front development costs might be met.
Enough for now. But more later I expect.....
When I was involved in privatisation issues in the UK Treasury in the 1980s, one of the most crucial issues in creating frameworks for competition was to differentiate between delivery mechanism and product. Within the public sector these were often combined into a pure monopoly (and sometimes a monopsony as well). It can make economic sense to allow a single distribution provider but only when there is plurality in the supply of a product or service and careful regulation of the distributive function. In a sense what we are seeing with the competitive supply and crewing of the international space station that is underway in the US is the beginning of the privatisation of space. In this too we need to ensure that delivery mechanisms do not become monopolistic. And when we look at Mars we need to be quite clear that any colony is not solely a by- product of a delivery mechanism but a human entity and, crucially, a new and vulnerable market in itself.
This is not to be critical of what Elon Musk has in mind but just to suggest that the fundamentals need very careful thought. In particular, I think that organising the creation and development of a colony as an enterprise formally distinct from Space X's rocketry and spacecraft program could open up some important funding mechanisms for a colony.
The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once wrote a novel about the first expeditions to the stars. He chose as the organiser of the flights a charitable foundation called, appropriately, 'The Long Range Foundation' (LRF). Amusingly the LRF had been set up to take forward research on projects which had no immediate prospect of profit but which might eventually prove beneficial to mankind in general. Embarrassingly for its charitable status, the LRF's research projects kept making money, so it opted for the star project as a means of getting rid of some of the loot! This is not just a sidetrack but a lead into the possibility of an additional means of funding the setting up of a Mars colony. I think a real LRF (or some such name) could attract finance from those seeking tax advantages and from genuine philanthropists for the development, design, and construction of life-support, radiological protection, hydroponics, soil farming, power supply, and habitat structures etc for a settlement. I cannot see that this charitable funding route would be available to Space X as the seller of tickets to Mars, though I see nothing to stop it from making donations to such a foundation itself.
On the funding of the transportation system, it has concerned me how much seems dependent on ticket sales, which can hardly be expected to roll in at a pace till the project is ready to start landing people on Mars. So I think it would be worth exploring the early sale of ticket options. The seat price quoted by Elon Musk is extra-ordinarily cheap, particularly when you consider the prices that wealthy tourists have already paid just to get into space (let alone the outrageous, highway robbery level, ticket prices Russia is now charging each NASA astronaut for a ride to the space station). There could be quite a market for early seat reservations for the trip to Mars, particularly if they could be on-sold. I think, say, $100,000 per reservation might generate considerable interest. The $100,000 would be part of the eventual cost of a seat, so no-one would pay more (except in opportunity costs). But some crucial up-front development costs might be met.
Enough for now. But more later I expect.....
Friday, July 5, 2013
Grandeur Or Boredom?
You will sometimes hear Mars described as about half the size of the Earth. It is true that the diameter of Mars is roughly half that of our planet but its surface area is less than a third, its volume less than a sixth, and its mass little more than a tenth that of Earth. However, if you feel short-changed planetwise by Mars, rest easy; since Mars has no oceans and seas, its actual land surface is very close to the dry land area of Earth. And that land surface contains some of the most breathtaking scenery in the solar system. Mars has the system's greatest mountain in Olympus Mons; and it has the canyon to end all canyons in the Valles Marineris, nearly ten times the length of the Grand Canyon and over three times as deep. So the seeker after grandeur will not be disappointed. Just to underline that point, we can ignore the common misconception that the horizon on Mars is much closer than it is on Earth, thereby restricting the majesty of any view. In fact, at average eye height on Mars, the horizon is still over four-fifths the distance away that it is on our own home world.
In the millennia since we started exploring our planet, we have not come to the end of its beauties and mysteries. Given the scale of Mars and its huge variety of landscape types, I see no reason to fear that martian colonists either are going to end up suffering from ennui in their quest to explore and familiarise themselves with their adopted home.
In the millennia since we started exploring our planet, we have not come to the end of its beauties and mysteries. Given the scale of Mars and its huge variety of landscape types, I see no reason to fear that martian colonists either are going to end up suffering from ennui in their quest to explore and familiarise themselves with their adopted home.
The Power Of Fusion
The real revolution in travel to Mars, and elsewhere in the solar system will come when a radically new propulsion system can be developed. Leaving aside warp drives, anti-matter propulsion or zero point energy,
any of which probably lie far enough in the future to constitute the stuff of science fiction for the moment; the likeliest candidate for fast travel to the planets is a nuclear fusion powered spacecraft. The problem is of course that research and development work on fusion power has been going on for decades without yet having produced anything capable of getting out of the process significantly more power than is put in. Nevertheless, work on fusion continues apace and there may be a breakthrough before a settlement on Mars is fully developed. Although a fusion propulsion system for a spacecraft would still need development, putting the advent of reasonably rapid planetary travel some further way off, it is worth reflecting on the implications for a moment.
What could fusion and the consequent possibility of constant boost ships achieve? The suggestion recently is that it could bring down the travel time to Mars to as little as thirty days. In addition, greater power capacity would allow the construction of larger transports for goods as well as people. The prospects for economically viable trade and for significant tourism could be substantially enhanced. In addition, large-scale soil farming in pressurisable poly-tunnels, which could then be transported in quantity from Earth, could lead to a much more rapid growth in the martian population. Constant boost would of course provide a more comfortable trip to Mars, as the acceleration would give the effect of gravity within the ship. Given the G force, suitable food animals in the early stages of growth could also be transported to vary the colonists' diets. If you have not considered this before just imagine what the conditions would be like with a menagerie in a zero G ship, as the animals' bodily wastes floated uncontrollably around their living quarters. And as the animals floated with them!
All this is looking quite far ahead, I concede. But it is a relevant issue to consider and potentially transformative for a colony's long-term future.
any of which probably lie far enough in the future to constitute the stuff of science fiction for the moment; the likeliest candidate for fast travel to the planets is a nuclear fusion powered spacecraft. The problem is of course that research and development work on fusion power has been going on for decades without yet having produced anything capable of getting out of the process significantly more power than is put in. Nevertheless, work on fusion continues apace and there may be a breakthrough before a settlement on Mars is fully developed. Although a fusion propulsion system for a spacecraft would still need development, putting the advent of reasonably rapid planetary travel some further way off, it is worth reflecting on the implications for a moment.
What could fusion and the consequent possibility of constant boost ships achieve? The suggestion recently is that it could bring down the travel time to Mars to as little as thirty days. In addition, greater power capacity would allow the construction of larger transports for goods as well as people. The prospects for economically viable trade and for significant tourism could be substantially enhanced. In addition, large-scale soil farming in pressurisable poly-tunnels, which could then be transported in quantity from Earth, could lead to a much more rapid growth in the martian population. Constant boost would of course provide a more comfortable trip to Mars, as the acceleration would give the effect of gravity within the ship. Given the G force, suitable food animals in the early stages of growth could also be transported to vary the colonists' diets. If you have not considered this before just imagine what the conditions would be like with a menagerie in a zero G ship, as the animals' bodily wastes floated uncontrollably around their living quarters. And as the animals floated with them!
All this is looking quite far ahead, I concede. But it is a relevant issue to consider and potentially transformative for a colony's long-term future.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Curiosity
From sky to sky the pink tinged dust lies lightly on the land,
With rock shards strewn across its face as if by hand.
The crater rim sets the horizon with its subtle hills,
While all around the empty air with silence chills.
All artifacts of man are alien to this antique world,
Yet, unconfounded, here machinery was hurled,
Planet to planet, till its busy life was brought to ground,
To wander now and give this place its only sound.
Been There, Bought The T-Shirt....
So when do tourists get to go to Mars? Assuming they want to of course; Mars is a long way off even on the shortest of trajectories. Until we develop faster forms of propulsion, the round trip is going to be about two years, most of it flight time and most of that pretty dull. And we have to give a colony the chance to get on its feet first; putting up guests, oxygenating them, and providing food and drink and basic accommodation is going to be a strain on resources in the initial few years. I doubt that facilities for tourists would be likely to become available for at least a decade after a colony is founded. Remember as well that part of the assumptions on which colony economics would be based is that of non-return. Further developments in technology and transportation costs need to be made before round trips become available for anyone.
Bear in mind also that the cost of a ticket is likely to be very high. That $500,000 a seat that Elon Musk has been talking about is for a one-way trip; and part of the pay-off for Space X, or whoever, is that when emigrants get to Mars they contribute to the pay-off by helping to develop the colony. The tourist price will not be just two times the 500 grand; it is likely instead to be several million dollars. I do not think that we are likely to see a thriving tourist economy any time soon.
So for the next two or three decades, however successful we are in beginning to settle Mars; if a guy comes up to you in a bar wearing a T-shirt which announcing that he has been to Mars with no reward but said shirt, be cautious before accepting him at his word!
Bear in mind also that the cost of a ticket is likely to be very high. That $500,000 a seat that Elon Musk has been talking about is for a one-way trip; and part of the pay-off for Space X, or whoever, is that when emigrants get to Mars they contribute to the pay-off by helping to develop the colony. The tourist price will not be just two times the 500 grand; it is likely instead to be several million dollars. I do not think that we are likely to see a thriving tourist economy any time soon.
So for the next two or three decades, however successful we are in beginning to settle Mars; if a guy comes up to you in a bar wearing a T-shirt which announcing that he has been to Mars with no reward but said shirt, be cautious before accepting him at his word!
The Rocket's Red Glare ( It Being The Fourth Of July After All)
I have made it pretty clear how important I think that Space X and its rocketry developments are likely to be for Mars colonisation. Space X has entered into operation of the unmanned Dragon spacecraft using its Falcon 9 rocket. In the pipeline are both a manned version of Dragon and the Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon Heavy will essentially strap three Falcon 9 first stages together. Before these first stage rockets consume all their fuel, the two outside boosters will transfer their remaining fuel to the centre booster. This is a novel manoeuvre but if it works the outside rockets will be separated after the fuel transfer leaving a fully fueled single first stage booster to carry on accelerating the vehicle. Effectively the centre rocket will be acting like the second stage of the launch system. A Falcon Heavy is already slated for operational use in 2015. It is anticipated among other things that it will deliver a Bigelow space habitat to the international space station that year.
On its own, the Falcon Heavy will not be able to launch a manned Mars mission. It is conceivable that multiple launches could place the components of a Mars vehicle in Earth orbit for subsequent assembly and fueling. But this approach would be inefficient, would require a lot of launches, and could be very costly. Space X has, however, revealed that it is considering developing a Falcon Super Heavy rocket that could be larger than Apollo's Saturn V. It is suggested that such a rocket might be able to launch 150 ton payloads into orbit. This would be a real game changer for Mars settlement. A Falcon Super Heavy program has yet to be formally announced but some statement may come later this year, along with the expected development of Space X's Mars plans. What relationship the Super Heavy might have to the vague statements so far made about a Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) it is hard to say at the moment. Perhaps an MCT will consist of some development of the Dragon spacecraft for delivering crews to the martian surface, together with a habitat for transit to Mars, and a cargo carrier/surface habitat for landing on Mars as well. We are likely to learn a good deal more in a few months time.
The Super Heavy launch system is what I think may make NASA's space launch system (SLS) redundant. Given Space X's track record so far, the SLS is going to look ruinously expensive alongside the Super Heavy, and probably under-powered as well. We shall see: most speculative illustrations of a possible Super Heavy seem to use much larger individual rocket stages than the Falcon 9. New rocket development is always costly, and although Space X appear particularly adept at keeping costs under control, I will be very interested to see projected time-lines and cost estimates for the Super Heavy. One crucial aspect of cost minimisation per launch is how far the lessons of the Grasshopper project can be built in to a Super Heavy launch system. Currently the test reusable rocket is using a Falcon 9 first stage. If the system can be made operational it will dramatically reduce Falcon 9 costs. But how readily the development can be up-scaled to a larger booster remains to be seen.
It is not clear how the Mars One proposals can fit into all this. It seems to me that given the head start Space X are developing, then Mars One would probably need to use Space X rockets and spacecraft technology. Would the Super Heavy be ready in time for Mars One's schedule? I am not sure. There might be an alternative of uprating the Falcon 9 further in the interim. Instead of strapping just three Falcon 9s together as the Falcon Heavy will do, a ring of six Falcon first stages could be built around the centre Falcon 9 rocket. These could use fuel transfer technology to keep the centre rocket topped up. Two of the outer ring of boosters could be exhausted and jettisoned at a time, refueling the remainder before breaking away. This might in effect produce an analogue of a three stage launch system and possibly propel a largely fueled Falcon 9 first stage into orbit, to power later a voyage to Mars. This interim idea is pure speculation on my part; however: I am not an engineer so I do not know if it might be practicable. Still, in for a penny, as they say; just thought I'd mention it!
On its own, the Falcon Heavy will not be able to launch a manned Mars mission. It is conceivable that multiple launches could place the components of a Mars vehicle in Earth orbit for subsequent assembly and fueling. But this approach would be inefficient, would require a lot of launches, and could be very costly. Space X has, however, revealed that it is considering developing a Falcon Super Heavy rocket that could be larger than Apollo's Saturn V. It is suggested that such a rocket might be able to launch 150 ton payloads into orbit. This would be a real game changer for Mars settlement. A Falcon Super Heavy program has yet to be formally announced but some statement may come later this year, along with the expected development of Space X's Mars plans. What relationship the Super Heavy might have to the vague statements so far made about a Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) it is hard to say at the moment. Perhaps an MCT will consist of some development of the Dragon spacecraft for delivering crews to the martian surface, together with a habitat for transit to Mars, and a cargo carrier/surface habitat for landing on Mars as well. We are likely to learn a good deal more in a few months time.
The Super Heavy launch system is what I think may make NASA's space launch system (SLS) redundant. Given Space X's track record so far, the SLS is going to look ruinously expensive alongside the Super Heavy, and probably under-powered as well. We shall see: most speculative illustrations of a possible Super Heavy seem to use much larger individual rocket stages than the Falcon 9. New rocket development is always costly, and although Space X appear particularly adept at keeping costs under control, I will be very interested to see projected time-lines and cost estimates for the Super Heavy. One crucial aspect of cost minimisation per launch is how far the lessons of the Grasshopper project can be built in to a Super Heavy launch system. Currently the test reusable rocket is using a Falcon 9 first stage. If the system can be made operational it will dramatically reduce Falcon 9 costs. But how readily the development can be up-scaled to a larger booster remains to be seen.
It is not clear how the Mars One proposals can fit into all this. It seems to me that given the head start Space X are developing, then Mars One would probably need to use Space X rockets and spacecraft technology. Would the Super Heavy be ready in time for Mars One's schedule? I am not sure. There might be an alternative of uprating the Falcon 9 further in the interim. Instead of strapping just three Falcon 9s together as the Falcon Heavy will do, a ring of six Falcon first stages could be built around the centre Falcon 9 rocket. These could use fuel transfer technology to keep the centre rocket topped up. Two of the outer ring of boosters could be exhausted and jettisoned at a time, refueling the remainder before breaking away. This might in effect produce an analogue of a three stage launch system and possibly propel a largely fueled Falcon 9 first stage into orbit, to power later a voyage to Mars. This interim idea is pure speculation on my part; however: I am not an engineer so I do not know if it might be practicable. Still, in for a penny, as they say; just thought I'd mention it!
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Manned, Or Unmanned, Space Exploration
There has been a debate ever since The Apollo Moon landings about whether space exploration, particularly of the planets, can be undertaken more cost-effectively and safely by sending out unmanned probes. The unmanned side of the argument has always been bolstered by the economic realities. The cash for manned deep space flight has never been available. Better therefore to do what we can with ever more sophisticated machines runs the case. And it is true that NASA, most particularly, has had some spectacular successes with fly-by and orbital missions to the outer planets, and orbital, lander and rover visits to Mars. The martian rover missions in particular have captured the popular imagination.
But I believe that the argument for preferring robotic to human exploration is deeply flawed. It entirely neglects the vast difference in the capacity of men and machines to collect data and samples from each planet or moon they visit. Men spent about 160 man hours walking and driving on the Moon. Imagine how many thousands of unmanned missions would have been needed to retrieve the quantity of lunar rock samples which just twelve astronauts obtained in that incredibly short time. And Apollo was just a series of short duration missions. There was no continuing human presence on the Moon. The point about human exploration is that it can be rapidly incremental. If we have a substantial colony on Mars, in which pressurised manned vehicles are eventually used to conduct a wide ranging survey and sampling of the planet; then we will probably be able to achieve in a couple of months what a century's worth of robotic rovers could deliver. And the scientific research and exploration will just keep on growing year after year.
What is more than this is that Mars will be a proving ground for techniques of deep space transportation, survival and exploration, which will provide us with the expertise to move on out into the solar system, picking off planets and moons for exploration one at a time. Again, manned exploration will be more rapidly incremental in nature and will deliver vastly larger results. That is because, as I have argued before, we are the ultimate machines. All-purpose exploratory tools, who develop and perfect our expertise as we go along.
Every robot explorer has to be envisaged, planned, engineered, developed, and ultimately flown, managed and manipulated by hundreds of scientists and technicians over a mission that may last decades. Yet still the approach is the ultimate in short-termism. If we put in the investment and patiently wait out the ten to fifteen years we will need, we will finally have the long-term exploratory potential of men on the surface of Mars. Then we can really start moving.
Progress is just that, a progression. Had we had the capacity to send small robotic machines to the Americas, rather than Columbus and his many successors, we would probably now be in the process of designing and programming a machine for making the first ground-breaking survey of the Ohio valley. The first ascent of the Rocky Mountains would probably still lie about half a millennium in our future!
To quote Protagoras: 'Man is the measure of all things'. I would simply add that he is also the measurer of all things. So let us send men and women, not just machines, out to do the measuring.
But I believe that the argument for preferring robotic to human exploration is deeply flawed. It entirely neglects the vast difference in the capacity of men and machines to collect data and samples from each planet or moon they visit. Men spent about 160 man hours walking and driving on the Moon. Imagine how many thousands of unmanned missions would have been needed to retrieve the quantity of lunar rock samples which just twelve astronauts obtained in that incredibly short time. And Apollo was just a series of short duration missions. There was no continuing human presence on the Moon. The point about human exploration is that it can be rapidly incremental. If we have a substantial colony on Mars, in which pressurised manned vehicles are eventually used to conduct a wide ranging survey and sampling of the planet; then we will probably be able to achieve in a couple of months what a century's worth of robotic rovers could deliver. And the scientific research and exploration will just keep on growing year after year.
What is more than this is that Mars will be a proving ground for techniques of deep space transportation, survival and exploration, which will provide us with the expertise to move on out into the solar system, picking off planets and moons for exploration one at a time. Again, manned exploration will be more rapidly incremental in nature and will deliver vastly larger results. That is because, as I have argued before, we are the ultimate machines. All-purpose exploratory tools, who develop and perfect our expertise as we go along.
Every robot explorer has to be envisaged, planned, engineered, developed, and ultimately flown, managed and manipulated by hundreds of scientists and technicians over a mission that may last decades. Yet still the approach is the ultimate in short-termism. If we put in the investment and patiently wait out the ten to fifteen years we will need, we will finally have the long-term exploratory potential of men on the surface of Mars. Then we can really start moving.
Progress is just that, a progression. Had we had the capacity to send small robotic machines to the Americas, rather than Columbus and his many successors, we would probably now be in the process of designing and programming a machine for making the first ground-breaking survey of the Ohio valley. The first ascent of the Rocky Mountains would probably still lie about half a millennium in our future!
To quote Protagoras: 'Man is the measure of all things'. I would simply add that he is also the measurer of all things. So let us send men and women, not just machines, out to do the measuring.
Grasshopper And More
For those not familiar with it already, I would encourage readers to have a look at Space X's Grasshopper reusable rocket project. Here is a You Tube link to a video showing the latest test flight of Grasshopper http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ls_cTSgxp0 The flight and the technology are impressive, particularly the stability of the rocket in both the lift and return phases. Space X's ultimate goal is to build full re-use technology into its launch systems, with the aim of cutting Earth to orbit costs to 100th of their traditional throwaway rocket levels. It is the development of this kind of technology that is going to make Mars flight truly affordable. The Grasshopper program is continuing and there will be more, longer duration, flights into the future. It is worth having a look at the Wikipedia article on Grasshopper. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_(rocket) The article is not fully up to date but it gives a good description of development plans.
I will return to the issue of Space X rocket development. As I have suggested previously, the company appears ahead of the curve in its plans for launch vehicles which might support a manned Mars mission and the founding of a colony. Space X has talked about the possibility of a Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT). It is not clear yet what the implications of this are for rocketry requirements. The corporation apparently intends to make some kind of further announcement later this year but I will post on some of the apparent options shortly.
I will return to the issue of Space X rocket development. As I have suggested previously, the company appears ahead of the curve in its plans for launch vehicles which might support a manned Mars mission and the founding of a colony. Space X has talked about the possibility of a Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT). It is not clear yet what the implications of this are for rocketry requirements. The corporation apparently intends to make some kind of further announcement later this year but I will post on some of the apparent options shortly.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Going Back To Earth
The $500,000 ticket to a Mars colony envisaged by Elon Musk is one-way.That is how the economics will work at first. But will individual colonists be committed to Mars for good? Most unlikely, for those whose residual wealth on Earth can meet the cost. We are talking about a commercial project after all. If you have the money you will eventually be able to get back. Although a man-rated return capacity may not be provided in the very early years of the colony, because of the heavy costs of developing the Mars launch mechanism and supplying the necessary fuel, it will not be many years before that capacity does become available. The ticket cost will probably be much higher than the payment for the outward trip, because that will have been set with the intention of encouraging potential colonists to come forward,: and because each colonist will represent an investment in manpower for the development of the settlement.
Returning some colonists will ultimately benefit the colony anyway. The last thing that will be wanted on Mars will be gradually growing numbers of the disaffected and the discouraged. There will be some malcontents on Mars, and there will be those who simply find it too difficult to adapt to the environment. Will this put the whole process of colonisation at risk? Might such a large proportion wish to return that the viability of the settlement itself could be challenged? I doubt that myself. We will be sending some pretty rugged and determined types to the red planet. By and large just not the sort to be easily discouraged and still less the kind who will be willing in any way to admit defeat. Adversity always weeds out the least fitted to an environment. In previous waves of human settlement, that has sadly in general meant the death of those who could not meet the grade. In the case of Mars, we can hopefully get the less determined and suited back to Earth instead.
Returning some colonists will ultimately benefit the colony anyway. The last thing that will be wanted on Mars will be gradually growing numbers of the disaffected and the discouraged. There will be some malcontents on Mars, and there will be those who simply find it too difficult to adapt to the environment. Will this put the whole process of colonisation at risk? Might such a large proportion wish to return that the viability of the settlement itself could be challenged? I doubt that myself. We will be sending some pretty rugged and determined types to the red planet. By and large just not the sort to be easily discouraged and still less the kind who will be willing in any way to admit defeat. Adversity always weeds out the least fitted to an environment. In previous waves of human settlement, that has sadly in general meant the death of those who could not meet the grade. In the case of Mars, we can hopefully get the less determined and suited back to Earth instead.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Act Itself !
I have already written about procreation on the red planet and about sexual mores. So what about the deed itself? How different, if at all, might sex be on Mars? Well it would be more bouncy, that is for sure. Mars gravity is only a little more than a third that of Earth but a man or a woman's mass remains the same. Action and reaction being equal and opposite, then sexual manoeuvrings will have a good deal more bounce. The consequence might be that a certain concentration on rhythm (not the rhythm method!) and control might be needed to stay coupled, as it were. More people might also be encouraged into positional variety. The ease of trying out the offerings of sex manuals, and of course the Kama Sutra, is likely to be considerably enhanced by one-third G. Stamina and strength requirements for the more exotic arrangements will both be much reduced in a Mars colony.
Will sex be better, worse, or equally good and bad, in a martian environment? I really could not guess. And perhaps this is a good point to stop speculating, before I become charged with a prurient interest by the less open-minded of readers!
Will sex be better, worse, or equally good and bad, in a martian environment? I really could not guess. And perhaps this is a good point to stop speculating, before I become charged with a prurient interest by the less open-minded of readers!
Incapacity, Age, Wealth And Work
One thing a Mars colony is not going to be able to sustain is some sort of welfare society. It will be a place of work, hard work. There may be resources eventually to provide for some forms of incapacity. Severely injured colonists or those with debilitating physical or mental illness are going to be on the sick list. Maybe there will need to be some ferrying of hard cases back to Earth. The early colony is not going to be able to handle more than a very small proportion of idle hands
The same constraint is going to affect any possibility of retirement. There will be a range of ages among colonists arriving on Mars. Each person's clock will effectively be reset. Any pension or retirement plans made on Earth cannot apply on Mars. If you get to Mars aged 50, you will have come as part of a group of pioneers who will need to anticipate working not exactly till they drop but certainly until age completely overtakes them. The colony may be able to find lighter duties for its members as they age but they will need to be reserved for the most badly affected by geriatric complaints.
So, what if you are very wealthy on Earth, will you be able to import your wealth to Mars and pay the colony to support you? Or just use a substantial pension to get you an easier life? I would suggest not. Wealth on Earth could subsidise vital imports for the colony but most of the necessities for the colony are going to have to be produced on Mars with the labour of the colonists. It would not be conducive to the absolutely essential harmony of an infant colony, if there were to be the establishment of a working and a non-working class. Any expenditure on Earth by colony members will need to benefit the whole settlement, not just the few, no matter what the source of the finance is. Such restrictions should not, of course, be permanent. As I have argued before, the last thing we should be trying to establish is some form of communism. But a fully normal free economy will need to await the point at which the colony is sufficiently large and well-established to cope with the pressures which social differentiation will entail.
The same constraint is going to affect any possibility of retirement. There will be a range of ages among colonists arriving on Mars. Each person's clock will effectively be reset. Any pension or retirement plans made on Earth cannot apply on Mars. If you get to Mars aged 50, you will have come as part of a group of pioneers who will need to anticipate working not exactly till they drop but certainly until age completely overtakes them. The colony may be able to find lighter duties for its members as they age but they will need to be reserved for the most badly affected by geriatric complaints.
So, what if you are very wealthy on Earth, will you be able to import your wealth to Mars and pay the colony to support you? Or just use a substantial pension to get you an easier life? I would suggest not. Wealth on Earth could subsidise vital imports for the colony but most of the necessities for the colony are going to have to be produced on Mars with the labour of the colonists. It would not be conducive to the absolutely essential harmony of an infant colony, if there were to be the establishment of a working and a non-working class. Any expenditure on Earth by colony members will need to benefit the whole settlement, not just the few, no matter what the source of the finance is. Such restrictions should not, of course, be permanent. As I have argued before, the last thing we should be trying to establish is some form of communism. But a fully normal free economy will need to await the point at which the colony is sufficiently large and well-established to cope with the pressures which social differentiation will entail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)