I find it strange also. Greenland is far more habitable - but so also is the Sahara or the Arizona desert.
There was a news story a while back about discovery of water in the Martian sand.
What many wouldn't realize, is that there is water in the sands of the Sahara desert also - I mean in the dry sand far from any oasis. And the amounts are about the same for Mars and Sahara - it was something of a surprise to find the Mars equatorial sand had as much water as the sand in the Sahara desert.
Yes you can get water from Martian sand. You can also get it from the Sahara sand.
Or, you get it from the ice on Mars, import ice from the poles, or in some places in the equator dig deep and you find it, well you can get it from sea water in the Sahara desert.
With the levels of technology they suggest for Mars, it's not comparing like with like when they say humans could live on Mars.
It's like - technology, and costs, that could lead to thousands of people able to live sustainably in the Sahara desert using seawater greenhouses for food - they would try to use to maintain half a dozen or a dozen people on Mars, being continually resupplied at great expense from Earth with many essentials, and with one of their main issues, to just create enough oxygen and avoid CO2 poisoning which is not even an issue on Earth anywhere except on the top of Mount Everest or under the sea.
And - the big plus for Earth that you can breath the air and don't need meters of soil to protect you from cosmic radiation and solar storms - and don't have to build houses of spherical or cylindrical shapes, with few very high tech windows, built to hold in tons of pressure per square meter, and put on a spacesuit whenever you leave your house or try to repair it.
And at a push, on Earth, you can live in a tent, to protect you from fierce sunlight or rain, with a sleeping bag for the cold. Or in many parts of the world, just sleep rough on the ground.
You don't need tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of expensive habitat just to stay alive, at reasonable temperatures and breathing.
I'm keen on human space flight, in the right place, where it is doing something of value. Including exploring Mars, if the aim is to explore, something worth while.
But I see no point in colonizing Mars for its own sake, with no other reason for being there. And the idea of Mars as a backup I think just doesn't cut it, we don't need one, there is nothing that could make Earth as uninhabitable as Mars or Mars as habitable as Earth. Why We Can't "Backup Earth" On Mars, The Moon, Or Anywhere Else In Our Solar System
There was a recent editorial in NY Times: Let’s Not Move to Mars
I've got a more positive spin on it myself I think, that humans can be of great value there, but we've got lots of things to sort out before they can be, and they are only of value if they can explore it without contaminating it with Earth life. It would be a tragic anti-climax to explore Mars only to find life that we brought there ourselves.
Ten Reasons NOT To Live On Mars - Great Place To Explore
I don't know why there is so much focus on sending humans to the surface of Mars, so quickly, when it is obvious that it's a potential contamination issue, given that humans can never be sterilized like robots.
For those who are dead keen on sending humans to Mars, still, their objective should be
not
It's maybe a subtle difference - but the first version gives the experts you ask the option to say "Sorry, it's not possible yet". While the second version tells them "We are going anyway, tell us how to do it without contaminating Mars". What then do they do if they can't find an answer? Well normally they say "More research needed" and all they can do is stall until they have an answer if they do.
This is mandated in the OST. If someone says "We will find a way to get humans to the surface of Mars consistent with the Outer Space Treaty" - well they are extrapolating beyond current science and current knowledge of Mars and current technology. It's not possible to say that right now.
And if they find it is not possible, that should mean, no mission, until they find a way it can be done, if it can at all.
I.e. instead of:
or whatever.
It should be
They talk about it as if you can keep the Earth life confined to the base, somewhere in the equatorial region, far from any ice. But - first - that means you are a long way away from the most interesting places on Mars. But also - what about a crash landing? How can you be totally sure human occupied spacecraft won't fire the insertion burn too long or not long enough, for instance, and hit the poles, as happened to the Mars Climate Orbiter?
And - whether a human could land on Mars and travel a few kilometers without contaminating the planet - I'm skeptical, when for instance spacesuits continually lose air. The spacesuits astronauts use on the ISS lose about eight litres of air every hour ( 136.5 sccm - that's Standard Cubic Cms per Minute).
Microbes also leak from the spaceship every time they open the airlock. With the "Suitlock" it still leaks a cubic foot of air from the cabin every time you go out or come back in.
Given that we sterilize our rovers to Mars carefully - and can't sterilize humans of microbes (sadly, I wish we could!) - even if it is not certain that astronauts will contaminate Mars with Earth life, surely there is a greatly increased risk of it, compared with robots.
Why increase the risk? What is so great about having humans on the surface of Mars that makes that risk worth taking? Why not start with them on Deimos or Phobos instead? A spectactular place to visit. And control robots on the surface via telepresence.
If we do go to Mars, this place has my vote - so long as it is studied first robotically and proved to be consistent with planetary protection (as it probably is)
Or else, or at an earlier stage, this spectacular orbit around Mars, easy to get to, easier in terms of delta v than the Moon, and optimized for close up telepresence exploration of both sides of Mars every day, and on the sunny side of Mars both times :)
To Explore Mars With Likes Of Occulus Rift & Virtuix Omni - From Mars Capture Orbit, Phobos Or Deimos
There was a news story a while back about discovery of water in the Martian sand.
What many wouldn't realize, is that there is water in the sands of the Sahara desert also - I mean in the dry sand far from any oasis. And the amounts are about the same for Mars and Sahara - it was something of a surprise to find the Mars equatorial sand had as much water as the sand in the Sahara desert.
Yes you can get water from Martian sand. You can also get it from the Sahara sand.
Or, you get it from the ice on Mars, import ice from the poles, or in some places in the equator dig deep and you find it, well you can get it from sea water in the Sahara desert.
With the levels of technology they suggest for Mars, it's not comparing like with like when they say humans could live on Mars.
It's like - technology, and costs, that could lead to thousands of people able to live sustainably in the Sahara desert using seawater greenhouses for food - they would try to use to maintain half a dozen or a dozen people on Mars, being continually resupplied at great expense from Earth with many essentials, and with one of their main issues, to just create enough oxygen and avoid CO2 poisoning which is not even an issue on Earth anywhere except on the top of Mount Everest or under the sea.
And - the big plus for Earth that you can breath the air and don't need meters of soil to protect you from cosmic radiation and solar storms - and don't have to build houses of spherical or cylindrical shapes, with few very high tech windows, built to hold in tons of pressure per square meter, and put on a spacesuit whenever you leave your house or try to repair it.
And at a push, on Earth, you can live in a tent, to protect you from fierce sunlight or rain, with a sleeping bag for the cold. Or in many parts of the world, just sleep rough on the ground.
You don't need tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of expensive habitat just to stay alive, at reasonable temperatures and breathing.
I'm keen on human space flight, in the right place, where it is doing something of value. Including exploring Mars, if the aim is to explore, something worth while.
But I see no point in colonizing Mars for its own sake, with no other reason for being there. And the idea of Mars as a backup I think just doesn't cut it, we don't need one, there is nothing that could make Earth as uninhabitable as Mars or Mars as habitable as Earth. Why We Can't "Backup Earth" On Mars, The Moon, Or Anywhere Else In Our Solar System
There was a recent editorial in NY Times: Let’s Not Move to Mars
I've got a more positive spin on it myself I think, that humans can be of great value there, but we've got lots of things to sort out before they can be, and they are only of value if they can explore it without contaminating it with Earth life. It would be a tragic anti-climax to explore Mars only to find life that we brought there ourselves.
Ten Reasons NOT To Live On Mars - Great Place To Explore
I don't know why there is so much focus on sending humans to the surface of Mars, so quickly, when it is obvious that it's a potential contamination issue, given that humans can never be sterilized like robots.
For those who are dead keen on sending humans to Mars, still, their objective should be
"We must find out if it is possible to get humans to the surface of Mars without contaminating it with Earth life irreversibly"
not
"We must find a way to get humans to the surface of Mars without contaminating it with Earth life irreversibly".
It's maybe a subtle difference - but the first version gives the experts you ask the option to say "Sorry, it's not possible yet". While the second version tells them "We are going anyway, tell us how to do it without contaminating Mars". What then do they do if they can't find an answer? Well normally they say "More research needed" and all they can do is stall until they have an answer if they do.
This is mandated in the OST. If someone says "We will find a way to get humans to the surface of Mars consistent with the Outer Space Treaty" - well they are extrapolating beyond current science and current knowledge of Mars and current technology. It's not possible to say that right now.
And if they find it is not possible, that should mean, no mission, until they find a way it can be done, if it can at all.
I.e. instead of:
"We will send a human to the Mars surface by 2030"
or whatever.
It should be
"If it doesn't impact on our science goals and the goals of other countries and the long term interests of humanity, we will send a human to the Mars surface by 2030"
They talk about it as if you can keep the Earth life confined to the base, somewhere in the equatorial region, far from any ice. But - first - that means you are a long way away from the most interesting places on Mars. But also - what about a crash landing? How can you be totally sure human occupied spacecraft won't fire the insertion burn too long or not long enough, for instance, and hit the poles, as happened to the Mars Climate Orbiter?
And - whether a human could land on Mars and travel a few kilometers without contaminating the planet - I'm skeptical, when for instance spacesuits continually lose air. The spacesuits astronauts use on the ISS lose about eight litres of air every hour ( 136.5 sccm - that's Standard Cubic Cms per Minute).
" The biggest issue associated with planetary protection and pressure garments is that they leak…the “leak-proof” space suit is on the same par with a perpetual motion machine… • When suits leak, they leak gas, but they also leak particulates present within the suit environment, including particles that undoubtedly harbor bugs"
Dressed for Success - Dean Eppler
Microbes also leak from the spaceship every time they open the airlock. With the "Suitlock" it still leaks a cubic foot of air from the cabin every time you go out or come back in.
And then you get these global dust storms - which we don't get on Earth. The dust particles are tiny, like talcum powder or cigarette smoke. But a microbe spore could easily shelter from the UV light imbedded in a grain of dust - the iron helps protect from UV light - and then be blown anywhere on Mars.
Given that we sterilize our rovers to Mars carefully - and can't sterilize humans of microbes (sadly, I wish we could!) - even if it is not certain that astronauts will contaminate Mars with Earth life, surely there is a greatly increased risk of it, compared with robots.
Why increase the risk? What is so great about having humans on the surface of Mars that makes that risk worth taking? Why not start with them on Deimos or Phobos instead? A spectactular place to visit. And control robots on the surface via telepresence.
If we do go to Mars, this place has my vote - so long as it is studied first robotically and proved to be consistent with planetary protection (as it probably is)
To Explore Mars With Likes Of Occulus Rift & Virtuix Omni - From Mars Capture Orbit, Phobos Or Deimos
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.3k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0