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.

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.

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.

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!

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.