Colonization of Mars

Many people strongly believe that the world is coming to an end. So, where will we move? What is to happen to the future of humanity? The answer: colonization of Mars.

This would not be Sci-Fy story. Scientists actually believe this is possible, Since Mars is the most similar planet to Earth, with the a dry solid surface and presence of sub-surface water. The temperature and atmosphere can be made similar to Earth’s after terraforming. Mars also contains material that can act like soil when combined with sufficient bacteria and water, which is necessary for long-term habituation. The day/night timing will also be similar to Earth’s. One day, or “sol” on Mars is 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35 seconds.

But what is really the problem is the cost of transporting civilization to Mars. Costs have been the bane of human existence. Is it worth it? Can we afford it? Terraforming an entire planet would be a very expensive feat. Mars’ surface area is 28.4% of the Earth’s, but would still cost around 3-4 trillion dollars to terraform it. Converting a red planet (a dead planet) to a blue planet (a planet with an acceptable atmosphere and temperature) would take between 100 and 200 years to complete. The five most important aspects brought up are the surface temperature rising, atmospheric pressure increasing, chemical composition changing, making the surface wet, and reducing surface flux of UV radiation. Then, it will take another 100 years for Mars to reach the green planet status, when one will be able to grow and host microbes and algae. The history of Mars permits terraforming to actually work, and become similar to Earth, but there are many ethical arguments involved when talking about terraforming and reshaping an environment, which I will discuss in a latter blog post.

The next major cost in colonizing Mars is that of transportation. Transporting a family of four would take $30 billion, food and water would take $52 million, and shelter would cost $150 million. And that’s only for a family of four. Of course, more people can fit in a spaceship than four people so the cost of travelling will not be this much for the entire population, but this gives us a general idea on how much it will be. Of course, not every family is able to afford a trip to Mars, and even bringing one million people to Mars would still be very expensive.

The next step for colonization is the actual colonization. This involves building cities on Mars using 3D printed houses. Gravity on Mars is much lighter than Earth, around 30% of Earth’s gravitational strength, so the architecture and machinery will be very different. The 3D printed cities will cost around 1.5 trillion dollars and will take 70 years to transport and complete. The amount of money going into this is obviously an abnormal amount, but given that this could ensure the future of humanity, money should not be an issue.

Sources:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-01/how-much-would-it-cost-live-mars-infographic

https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-colonize-Mars-including-R-D

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5868115/how-we-will-terraform-mars

- Ata Numanbayraktaroglu

Mission to Europa

An image of Europa taken
by Galileo in the late 1990's.
The brown streaks suggest the
presence of a sub-surface
ocean because contaminant
(claimed to include sea salt)
have mixed with the icy surface
to create the "dirty ice."
http://cseligman.com/text/moons/europa.htm

The Galileo mission, launched in 1989, revealed possible evidence of salt water below the surface of Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons. What Galileo discovered on Europa are bumpy features called chaos terrains. Analysis suggests that these features are formed from a heat exchange between Europa’s icy shell and an underlying ocean. This could provide a model for transferring nutrients and energy between the surface and the inferred ocean. While it was running out of fuel, Galileo was intentionally sent into Jupiter to be destroyed, in case leaving it in orbit would lead to it crashing into Europa and contaminating any potential life.

The Galileo mission piqued scientists’ curiosity about this moon, and a mission to Europa is expected to launch in the 2020’s. This mission, the Europa Clipper, will perform 45 flybys at various altitudes, from 1700 miles to 16 miles above the surface. Its goal is to take high-resolution pictures of the surface to determine its composition, and use an ice-penetrating radar to search for sub-surface waters. A thermal emission imaging system will survey the surface in search of any recent eruptions of warmer water, and other instruments will search for evidence of water and tiny particles in the moon’s atmosphere. This flyby approach will obviate the need to drill through layers of ice to find possible signs of life.

Why is drilling currently not an ideal approach? It is not definite that there is an ocean below the surface. It is possible that drilling before fully understanding Europa will be a waste of time, resources, and money. Also, the surface of the moon is exposed to extreme radiation from Jupiter’s radiation belts. A drilling machine or spacecraft will need a vast amount of radiation protection, which will make the craft heavy and thus expensive to transport. The flyby approach will decrease the amount of protection needed because the Europa Clipper will only be close to Jupiter during a small portion of its orbit.

On the other hand, if the Europa Clipper discovers strong evidence that suggests Europa has a sub-surface ocean that may be habitable for people or other lifeforms, a drill will be necessary to reach the habitable area. The amount of radiation on the surface is enough to cause severe illness or death after a single day’s exposure, but the thick, icy crust is thought to be able to shield the ocean from the radiation on the surface. While the Europa Clipper is not designed to search for life, a future mission would need to be designed to determine if Europa is already inhabited. It is uncertain now whether Europa is suitable to house life, but the Europa Clipper mission hopes to reveal if the ability is present.

Sources:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-mission/
http://www.space.com/18632-galileo-spacecraft.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/europa_20111116.html
http://earthsky.org/space/nasa-steps-closer-to-a-europa-mission

- Amanda Monteavaro

Shedding Light on Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Looking at the night sky, the heavens appear to be utterly empty. Space draws its name from seeming to be just that – empty space. While seemingly obvious, this assumption does not hold true. Approximately 68% of the universeⁱ is composed of mysterious energy known as dark energy. Originally predicted by Einstein’s erroneous cosmological constant, dark energy may function as a reduced form of a constant in the equations for relativity. If this form of energy is indeed fixed,ⁱⁱ dark energy functions as a constant term in equations. Considered in Friedman’s equation,ⁱⁱⁱ H² = (8 π G / 3) ρ - k c² / R² + Λ/3, the cosmological constant Λ/3 may be construed as dark energy. While Einstein may have inadvertently directed attention to the existence of dark energy, the discovery that the Universe is flat lends strength to an argument for the existence of dark energy’s counterpart, dark matter. In very general terms, dark matter is defined as a structure with mass and that does not reflect light, hence the title “dark." For the Universe to be flat it must contain a certain amount of mass to meet the required density so that gravitational waves exist also exist in a flat plane. As observable mass and energy alone, another mechanism must be at work. Dark matter has been inferred to be this mechanism, providing a large portion of the Universe’s mass without reflecting light. For the sake of understanding, this entry will focus primarily on dark matter, as its counterpart dark energy requires an understanding of dark matter.

Given the strange nature of dark matter a question remains: what is the function of dark matter? For dark matter to exist, such matter must have mass. Simulations of the Milky Way Galaxy from the Big Bang to the present predict a scattering of matter^iv. As the Milky Way is not a particularly massive galaxy, no collection of identifiable objects is capable of providing the gravitational pull to hold the galaxy together. In the context of the simulations, identifiable objects are defined as objects who may reflect light. The mass of the visible objects alone is not sufficient for the Milky Way to maintain its spiral form – suggesting another source of mass. For the universe as it currently exists to make sense, mass that does not reflect light must exist. Thus it may be concluded that dark matter is responsible for mass but do not reflect light – lending it the prefix “dark.”

https://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/clowe.cfm

Despite rapid advancements in modern telescopes, both studying and observing dark matter is extremely difficult. As this phenomenon cannot be seen by conventional means, scientists must turn to creative and inventive methods of detection. Chief among the techniques used to detect this strange form of matter is gravitational lensing. Measuring the distortion and bending of far-away light^v, the potential effect of an object between the observer and the vent may be measured. When scientists observed the collision of the Bullet Cluster, they found that the majority of the mass after the collision was located on the periphery of the collision – proof that dark matter particles do not interact with one another. If the opposite held true – that dark matter particles do interact with one another, the gas in the center of the collision would have been slowed down. Thus, dark matter’s lack of interaction with itself allows for the distribution of mass along the periphery of the Bullet Cluster, as indicated by orange lines in the picture below.

Numerous astronomical objects have been proposed as candidates to be dark matter. When used in this sense, the term dark matter is applied to mean matter that at extremely low luminosities and temperatures. “Baryonic”^vi dark matter, matter made from regular elements and compounds, may include black holes, dwarf stars and neutron stars. While it is tempting to accept both dwarf and neutron stars as dark matter, these may be ruled out due to the age of the universe. Put simply, the universe has not existed for a time period sufficient to achieve the creation of enough neutron stars to account for all of dark energy. Black holes seem to be a logical candidate due to their absorbance of light – yet are not common enough in the Universe to account for all of dark matter. This causes scientists to look to non-standard matter, also known as “Non-Baryonic Matter.” Such matter would be composed of unknown exotic particles high enough in mass to have an observable effect on galaxies. Finally, some scientists argue that dark matter does not exist. Equating the gravitational shift to differing properties of gravity on large scales, dark matter may be unknown gravitational properties of extremely high mass objects.^vii

Sources:

ⁱ http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ 

ⁱⁱ http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-did_einstein_predict.php 

ⁱⁱⁱ http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec16.html 

^iv http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dark-energy-the-biggest-mystery-in-theuniverse-9482130/?no-ist 

^v https://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/clowe.cfm 

^vi http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec16.html 

^vii http://www.space.com/4554-scientists-dark-matter-exist.html

- Frank Kovacs

Practical Considerations of Terraforming Mars

The concept of altering Mars’ environment so that it is habitable for humans, or terraforming, has been subject to a lot of speculative fiction and debate. The idea was first incorporated into Arthur C. Clarke’s novel, The Sands of Mars, in 1951. Since then, the prospect has been explored and tested through numerous studies and is now seen as possibility. A key issue to making this a reality deals with altering Mars’ atmosphere so that it will have sufficient levels of oxygen/ozone. The methods to which this can be achieved, as studied by NASA, seem feasible but still impractical in the long term, particularly in terms of cost. Mars’ atmosphere is mainly composed of carbon dioxide, and oxygen makes up about 0.1% of it(NASA). Mars’ temperature, which is much lower than that of Earth, would also need to be altered in the terraforming process. Terraformation on Mars has been a popular idea, since its environmental characteristics are the closest to Earth’s so far. But, due to the specifics of Mars’ temperature and atmosphere, it is unlikely that life can prosper in those conditions. There are some solutions to terraforming the hostile characteristics of Mars’ environment. For example, creating greenhouse effects with vapor would raise the temperature to a sufficient degree. However, these solutions are not achievable in the long-run. There are other potential solutions, such as genetic engineering, or altering the atmosphere to sustain more oxygen. But for now, all of these ideas are either impractical in the long run or would take way too long to be concluded as effective solutions.

Sources:

http://www.universetoday.com/127311/guide-to-terraforming/

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770005775

- Haeun Bang

Is Building a Colony on Mars a Suicide Mission?

With the way humans have been developing technology over the past fifty years, it seems like a trip to Mars is inevitable. Whether it takes us twenty years or one hundred years, humans will eventually go to Mars. Many scientists today believe that we currently have the resources needed to send humans to Mars. For some of the plans that have been proposed, the humans we send would not come back. That is because once they get to Mars, they will attempt to build a self-sustaining colony there and a return trip home may be too difficult if the colony fails. So, if we send humans to Mars with the goal of building a colony, are we essentially sending people to their deaths? While there are many psychological risks that could have dangerous consequences, I will focus on the physical risks that could potentially kill the astronauts before or shortly after they reach Mars.

One of the reasons why people may die either before reaching Mars or shortly after is due to radiation. Without the Earth’s magnetic field and dense atmosphere to protect them, humans would be at a much higher risk to develop cancer. In addition, high radiation levels may have an effect on the heart or central nervous system which could potentially cause death. This problem could be minimized if we choose people who have a genetic resistance to radiation. In places such as Ramsar, Iran, the beaches near Guarapari, Brazil, and Yangjiang, China, there are high levels of natural radiation, but below average cancer rates meaning many of them are more likely to have a genetic resistance to radiation. However, even with people like this, there is still a high chance that they would die much sooner than they would had they stayed on Earth.

Many of the other heath risks associated with going to Mars have to do with the effect of weightlessness and reduced gravity on the human body. When humans experience an extended amount of time without gravity, their muscles atrophy and and their bones quickly become weaker as they experience bone loss. Weightlessness also causes humans to experience cognitive problems similar to the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. These medical concerns could cause a huge problem when the astronauts actually get to Mars. Since their bodies will be much weaker, it could be difficult for these people to lift the heavy objects necessary to build their colony in reduced gravity. Allowing the astronauts to run on a treadmill in microgravity as part of their training could minimize the risk, but again it would still be very difficult for these people to not only live a long life on Mars, but thrive.

It has been no secret that a trip to Mars could have deadly consequences. As with any exploration, venturing into the unknown comes with risk. However, there is some concern that even if the Mars trip is successful, the astronauts will probably die much sooner than they would have on Earth. So, is building a colony on Mars a suicide mission? It absolutely is. No matter what happens, the people we send will most likely not come back. But, this should not cause too much concern. These volunteers would die doing something remarkable by having the chance to go where no human has ever gone before. We should not be afraid to let them face this challenge.

Sources: 

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/mission-to-mars-health-risks-110718.htm
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-best-mars-colonists-could-come-from-places-like-iran-and-brazil/

- Autumn Hair

Out of the Danger Zone: Why Habitable Zones Support the Rare Earth Hypothesis

Life here on Earth is miraculous; our Earth has numerous unique characteristics that create a habitable space for complex and intelligent life to form. These traits are the reason we exist today and point towards the rare Earth hypothesis, which demonstrates we are the only intelligent life in the universe. One of the most critical characteristics the Earth has is its location in the solar system. We are in the perfect spot; we are close enough to the sun so our climate and orientation can benefit, and we are far enough so we do not experience the harmful effects of the sun. This area in a solar system is known as the “habitable zone.”¹ The habitable zone makes the Earth an ideal rocky planet for life to form and develop.

First hypothesized in the 1960s, the habitable zone in a solar system is “the region in a planetary system where habitable Earth clones might exist.”¹ The Earth is close enough to the sun so that its oceans are not completely frozen (like Mars). However, if the Earth were closer to the sun, its oceans would be in danger of boiling away. Scientists estimate the oceans on Venus evaporated at least one billion years ago. The complex life on the Earth requires water, and without the sun warming the surface, the Earth would not be able to sustain this kind of life. Scientists do hypothesize, however, that certain forms of life may exist on places like Europa, and they may not need water to survive. These organisms could thrive using only the chemicals available to them.

On the flip side, Europa does not have a sun that can keep its climate mild. The sun warms the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere traps some of the rays. Although the temperature in Antarctica is drastically different from the temperature on the equator, the climate range we experience here on the Earth is minute and ideal for life relative to other rocky planets.

Another benefit of the habitable zone comes from the gravitational force of the sun. The suns gravity pulls on the Earth, and, in turn, the Earth’s gravity puts force on the sun. This exchange of forces puts the Earth into orbit around the sun. The specific position the Earth is in causes its orbit around the sun to be only slightly elliptical compared to other planets in our solar system. This allows the Earth to remain around the same distance from the sun throughout its entire orbit; it only varies by about five million kilometers.² The almost circular orbit keeps the Earth in the habitable zone, and lets the sun continue to warm the surface most effectively.

The warm sun disappearing after the summer is not a result of the orbit, however. The seasons are caused by the Earth’s axial tilt in relation to the sun. The Earth is tilted at about 23.4 degrees. Throughout a year, the planet is tilted in the same direction relative to the background stars, meaning that when the Earth is on opposite ends of the orbit, different hemispheres are tilted towards the sun. For example, during the summer in the Northern Hemisphere, the top half of the Earth is tilted towards the sun, while the Southern Hemisphere tilts away and experiences winter. Seasons are key for intelligent life mainly because without them, humans would all stay close to the equator where the climate is most mild.

The habitable zone is a key part of our existence on the Earth; it allows the Earth to interact in a series of ways with the sun during its orbit, keeping the climate mild and the oceans liquid. The Earth’s atmosphere traps heat in, and the gravitational forces allow for a more circular orbit. Furthermore, the Earth’s axial tilt gives rise to seasons based on the hemisphere tilted towards the sun. All of these factors contribute to the planet’s suitability for complex and intelligent life, and when put together, these unique characteristics support the rare Earth hypothesis that we may actually be alone in the universe.

Sources:

¹Ward, Peter D., and Donald Brownlee. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus, 2000.

²Williams, Matt. "Earth's Orbit Around the Sun." Universe Today. N.p., 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Apr. 2016. http://www.universetoday.com/61202/earths-orbit-around-the-sun/.

³Cain, Fraser. "Earth, Sun and Moon." Universe Today. N.p., 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 1 Apr. 2016. http://www.universetoday.com/26987/earth-sun-and-moon/.

- Sara Jahanian

Does Earth Serve as A Warning Not to Colonize Further?

The effect that humans have had on Earth, and the nearly undeniable effect humans are predicted to have in the future, proves that adding humans to a planet does not lead to positive things for that planet. However, many scientists and forward-thinkers have claimed that occupying another planet, and perhaps abandoning our current, dying planet, is the best possible solution to future survival.

This serves to pose a new question- if going to another planet is the best chance for our survival, should humans care that this may entail ruining the new planet as well? Are we obligated to preserve the life of possible foreign species, or should we value our own survival over that of anything found on other planets?

There are two sides to the argument about foreign life- those that believe that, since there is no sign of sentient or intelligent life on nearby planets, we shouldn’t care about our possible effect on their ecosystems. Others argue that exterminating even unintelligent species of foreign life should be avoided if at all possible. Additionally, even if colonization was not the main cause for a visit, bringing other life to until-then-unexplored planets is potentially easily done and very damaging. Without meaning to, humans could harm or even destroy the ecosystems on these planets.

Another argument to be considered is the possibility that human colonization, however damaging it may be, is more humane than colonization by some other civilization. If this is to be believed, it seems almost a given that humans should colonize as many other places as possible, since our, at least initial, purpose would be solely our survival. Unfortunately, the chances of our purposes staying focused solely on survival seems somewhat slim- looking back through human history.

There is also the possibility of other life colonizing other planets, or Earth for that matter, before we can colonize those other planets first. Humans are likely not alone in the pursuit of survival, and it is likely that other civilizations may be just as self-destructive to their own planets as we have been to ours. If this is the case, these civilizations have just as much of a chance at colonizing the planets surrounding us as we do, and could therefore take away our chances at survival. This implies that colonization should be done as soon as possible, to limit the chance of other civilizations colonizing available planets before we can.

However, no matter what possible future decisions seem the best, there may always be a few (or many) people that will strive for colonization. Despite any concerns that may arise, humans will always strive towards survival, and if colonization seems the surest way to survive, there will be people determined to follow through with it.

Sources:

http://foundational-research.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/

- Mary Garrett