Arctic Research Station: A Step Toward Mars

Phrogman writes: "There is some great information on the Mar's Society's Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station which is being set up in the 20km diamater Haughton meteorite crater on Devon Island in Canada's high arctic. They will be assembling a complete simulation of a manned Mars lander there and conducting research leading towards a human mission to Mars. The lander was built in Denver, and is currently undergoing final checks before being flown up to the crater by the U.S. Marine Corps. There is detailed information on the lander itself here.

The project is a joint venture with NASA, and is sponsored by the Mars Society, Discovery Channel, and of course flashline.com (thus the name). There is also excellent 360 degree Quicktime(tm) photos of the entire region on the official website for the Haughton-Mars project. Marc Boucher of spaceref.com is actually onsite at the base camp and will be reporting on events there over the next few months."

The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.

Comments

So when's the TV show?

[sugarman]

You know, if they really wanted to raise public awareness, they'd put mini-cams and mikes everywhere, and broadcast the damn thing nightly.

I mean, just think:

An hostile environment which can weed out the morons (none of this pansy "Tropical Resort" crap)

A bunch of scientists in a closed space. If they're anything like the scientists, grad students, or OSS programmers I know, the political infighting will be better than any soap opera

Tons of nifty new tech gadgets from Nasa (or assorted VC start-ups, paying to be showcased)

And the looming spectre of the US Military in the background. (ya gotta have a bad guy)

To hell with Survivor or Big Brother, I wanna see this.

Re:mercenary

[gopherguts]

...and the males will all be named Brian.

What you mean "we", paleface?

[Tau Zero]

We'll never actually set foot on Mars. We, being the USA.

Space hardware is getting cheaper all the time. If some outfit like Roton gets into the business, the price of launches is going to drop drastically as well. Sooner or later, a Mars mission is going to be within reach of a private membership organization. Like, say, the Mars Society?

It doesn't matter extremely if the US government doesn't go, as long as somebody goes. I'd prefer Mars to be settled by people from a culture of democratic institutions and a recent frontier, but in a pinch anything will do.
--
Ancient Goth: Someone who overthrew the Roman Empire.

The possibilities and the problems

[Anonymous Coward]

There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit.

That's simply untrue. There is tremendous commercial interest in raw materials and energy, both of which are available in the solar system (and except for solar energy, all beyond GEO) in quantities millions of times what we can extract on Earth.

The problem is simple: it just costs too much right now to get past GEO, and it is beyond our tested capabilities to bring anything back in quantity. These are things that will change, although they won't change immediately. There's simply too much room for improvement for them not to change, short of a total technological retrogression.

Right now, it costs over $5000 to put a kilogram payload in orbit. $3 of this is spent on fuel. The rest of it is spent on expendable rockets and enormous ground crews, both of which were needed to develop space flight in a hurry and catch up to the Soviets, but neither of which are intrinsically necessary with today's technology. When the costs of accessing orbit drop first by a factor of 10, then by a factor of 100, expect the situation to change dramatically. Imagine if you had to buy a new car for each trip to work, and it starts to sink in.

Of course, I don't expect costs to drop by that much any time in this decade. Rotary Rocket might have done it, but they don't have a chance at getting the financial backing. Kistler still might do it, if they can round up the last half of the funding they need; I'm not optimistic, but I've got my fingers crossed. The American aerospace giants, Lockheed Martin Marietta (insert 50 other names here) and Boeing have basically merged with all their former competitors, and (aside from the fact that we've all but lost the commercial launch market to Europe) have no big incentive for radical new development programs. They get government money at "cost-plus", where they report how much they spent on a project and get some prearranged percentage of that as a guaranteed profit. Not exactly an incentive to cut costs. I'm (indirectly) a Lock-Mart employee, and I've seen first hand the "spend this money or they'll take it away" mentality.

Smaller startups like Kistler have a chance to do much better, but this isn't the internet; a startup space program needs a couple billion dollars of capital to be a success, not a couple million like a dot com.

Billionaire venture capitalists are harder to find. I hope Beal does well; they're starting conservatively, but at least they're fresh blood.

I'm not worried about the long term; within a few centuries the fossil fuels and the fissionable uranium are going to become more and more precious, the industrializing third world is going to raise world power consumption tenfold, fusion power plants are going to be developed (and be unable to find completely clean-burning fuels closer than the Helium-3 on the moon and outer planets), and getting power from space is going to look better and better.

I'm a hopeless science ficiton fan

So am I; that's why I'd like to see the development and colonization of space start within my lifetime, when it's first possible, rather than four centuries from now, when it will first become dramatically necessary.

Hell, there's probably other SF fans on Slashdot who enjoy stories of warp drives, matter transporters, and other gee-whiz plot devices but who haven't read even layman's accounts of what's possible with real technology. A few recommendations:

Entering Space is the single book to get if you're curious about this stuff; it's also by Robert Zubrin, one of the founders of the Mars Society which is sponsoring the Arctic Research Station (see, I'm still on topic!)

The Case for Mars is probably the reason the Mars Society exists in the first place. It's also a hell of an influential book; NASA adopted a variation of Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan, and subsequently cut their estimates of what a manned Mars landing would cost from $500 billion to $50 billion.

Halfway to Anywhere is G. Harry Stine's discussion of the SSTO concept: a single stage to orbit, reusable rocket that could cut costs to orbit by two orders of magnitude.

Mining the Sky is a little more pollyanna than the other books, but still interesting.

I'm posting anonymously, both because of the Lock-Mart mention above and because I'd like to beg that someone moderate this up without being punished for karma whoring. +1, Informative, please?

sweet

[PHanT0]

maybe one day, we might actually get there...

Re:Your ignorance makes me cry

[Signal 11]

The only way that would pay off would be if you were in a position to get funds earmarked for NASA that congress would now be reluctant to hand over to them. Some people (in gov't) don't really like NASA and are quick to point out it's errors whenever they come up.

Bingo.

Devon Island

[Kartoffel]

Some of the native hot-weather Texans at here at JSC are a little hesitant to take frigid assignments on Devon Island. Damn, wish I could get a chance to go....

At least you wouldn't need Fluoinert and liquid nitrogen to overclock your computers on Mars--just leave it outside ;)

Re:Devon Island

[Phrogman]

At least this is in the Summer with temperatures hovering in the near zero range from what I understand. The only time I was in the high arctic, I spent 2 weeks at Clyde River on Baffin Island in early December. It completely redefined cold for me. Temperatures ranged from -20C to -40C (with windchill making that an impressive -70C at night on one occaision). There we were in like 9 layers of clothing and the local Innuit kids are racing around in jeans, a heavy T-shirt and sneakers on their snowmobiles. We complained about the cold and the Innuit Rangers we were with told us we should come back in late January to early February when "The real winter comes". Since I was in the Canadian Army at the time, we naturally were staying in tents.

Mind you it was an incredible experience, but one I am glad to remember from the comfort of my balmy Victoria apartment thank you very much...

You may joke, but...

[Old Man Kensey]

Canada is one hell of a lot more accessible than the Antarctic, but it's still pretty remote and one of the more Mars-like environments on earth. Antarctica has all this ice that Mars lacks, for one.

I'm intrigued by the environmental-containment requirements. On the Moon you have to have a seal because there's hard vacuum out there. On Mars the same will be true, but in addition to the low-pressure unbreathable atmosphere, there's the possibility of Martian microbes. And of course it would be a shame if we got all excited over Martian "life" only to find that it was Earth microbes that had escaped and multiplied in a pristine environment.

Sagan's Cosmos has some interesting speculations on what we might find, based on "Mars jars" experiments and the inconclusive Viking data. At this point we still can't even exclude the possibility of multicellular life (simple lichens or slime molds, maybe even things as complex as moss should be able to survive on Mars).

Getting to Mars

[Lish]

I am glad to see that NASA is moving forward towards a Mars trip, testing equipment, etc. I have no doubt that the technical know-how is there to put this together. I wonder, though, how thoroughly they are researching the psychological and group-dynamics aspects of having a crew stuck together in space for months on the trip there with little to do and even less contact with home. Keeping any group of people in a confined space for such an extended period is bound to cause problems.

I assume there have been studies based on scientists in the Antarctic, oil-rig workers, MIR Astronauts, etc., but even those people have relatively easy contact with human civilization compared to the relay time associated with travel to Mars. And if an emergency occurred, help could be summoned within a reasonable amount of time. In space, those reassurances aren't there. Anyone know of any studies that would really compare to these conditions?

Re:Getting to Mars

[DHartung]

Lish wrote:
I wonder, though, how thoroughly they are researching the psychological and group-dynamics aspects of having a crew stuck together in space for months on the trip there with little to do and even less contact with home. Keeping any group of people in a confined space for such an extended period is bound to cause problems. I assume there have been studies based on scientists in the Antarctic, oil-rig workers, MIR Astronauts, etc., but even those people have relatively easy contact with human civilization compared to the relay time associated with travel to Mars. And if an emergency occurred, help could be summoned within a reasonable amount of time. In space, those reassurances aren't there. Anyone know of any studies that would really compare to these conditions?

Well, here at the end of the twentieth century (or the beginning of the twenty-first), it's easy to say "gosh that would be psychologically debilitating!" Just a few generations ago, though, people regularly endured reasonably comparable conditions, often for nothing more rewarding than a good job. If you want a sense of how people endured under extreme conditions when separated from any kind of civilization or even emergency help for months at a time, read about Ernest Shackleton and the Endurance expedition (or any number of similar Arctic/Antarctic ventures), or military expeditions across the Americas, or what have you. The fact is that some of us feel MUCH TOO MUCH is made of the "psych factor".

Choose good people, build a team, you can tell how well they work together on Earth. If people are reasonably focused on their work and mission, they're not going to be interested in stirring up trouble with each other.

----

Re:Getting to Mars

[Reality Master 101]

Heck, you really only have to look at oceangoing ships or submarines to see somewhat equivalent conditions. At sea for months, cramped conditions, endless days of the same scenery. Nothing we haven't done before. People adapt.

--

A Step Toward Mars

[by by on]

There is some great information on the Mar's Society's Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station which is being set up in the 20km diamater Haughton meteorite crater on Devon Island in Canada's high arctic. They will be assembling a complete simulation of a manned Mars lander there and conducting research leading towards a human mission to Mars. The lander was built in Denver, and is currently undergoing final checks before being flown up to the crater by the U.S. Marine Corps. There is detailed information on the lander itself here.

The project is a joint venture with NASA, and is sponsored by the Mars Society, Discovery Channel, and of course flashline.com (thus the name). There is also excellent 360 degree Quicktime(tm) photos of the entire region on the official website for the Haughton-Mars project. Marc Boucher of spaceref.com is actually onsite at the base camp and will be reporting on events there over the next few months."

The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.

The public and the possibilities

[Reality Master 101]

The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.

Note: This post is in the context of manned space exploration, versus unmanned probes, the latter of which I support.

I've seen this attitude elsewhere, kind of like "if only the public really understood the idea of going to mars, there would be a lot of support for it". Well, I've got news for people: The public knows as much as they need to know, and they don't care. The public's attitude can be summed up by "Go to another rock? Been there. Done that."

There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.

And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).

It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.

Wake me up when someone has a plan to start mining space, terraforming an asteroid, or launching a factory for low-grav manufacturing. Until then, all this is just a carnival sideshow.

--

Re:The public and the possibilities

[yarmond]

Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.

In this lies the problem that, in my opinion, will keep humans confined to Earth permanently: There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit. What's on the moon or Mars or anywhere else in the solar system that has any value beyond scientific curiosity? Nothing. Without the pressure of commercial greed or the competition of the cold war, the advance of the space program has been and will continue to be diminished.

I'm a hopeless science ficiton fan, but the reality of the situation is that humans will never make it as far as settling the solar system, let alone traveling the stars.

Re:The public and the possibilities

[styopa]

benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper)

I'm sure that microprocessors, the push for micronization, and several super light super strong plastics would have eventually showed up in industry without the inovations by the Apollo program but would they have been any cheeper than they are today, and would it have take another 10-20 years to get to the level that the Apollo program had. Would our $49 k6-2's really be any cheeper if microprocessors had been inovated by industry. Would our level of technology today be anywhere near what it is if we hadn't had the space program?
Here is some of the inventions.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/Daily News/NASA_spinoffs981001.html

Most new, truly inovative, technologys arrise from the needs of pure research. If we cut off pure research, as you are suggesting, then we can expect truly mold shattering inventions to become less frequent.

It is time for private industry to privatize space

I would like to hear you say that when Coca Cola starts putting up orbiting advertisements that block you and your dates view of the stars. If private industry privatizes space you can expect the Taco Bell Dog annoying us in even the most remote of places. Without the govenment preventing space from becoming the next greatest billboard by having the only game in town we can enjoy the views of the stars unobstructed. Eventually those advertisements will appear but
not any time soon.

The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat

Well, the Russians may be out of the picture but with China develping a space program we may have another space race coming up.

It is also best for society to keep up pure research. If one looks at the chronicles of history, all of the great empires (except the British) started to collaps when scientific research for the sake of science was cut in funding to help fund, mostly military, but also other programs. Our ability to support pure scientific research, like exploring space and mars, is a necessity and something we should be proud of and support because without it our great society will fall victom to repeating history.

Re:The public and the possibilities

[Reality Master 101]

There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit.

Actually, I think that's a little pessimistic. Asteroid mining obviously needs to go into the asteroid belt, but I think I know what you mean. You want real colonies on real planets that you can visit. In that respect, you have a point.

However, I think there's hope. It comes down to a question of cost. There are tons of people who would like to live on mars just for the vacation aspect, but at this point it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain a colony, set up regular space flights, etc. However, once we lower the costs of staying in space for asteroid mining or manufacturing (which ought to be very profitable), the costs of setting up a colony should drop a lot.

The biggest problem with space travel is that our technology is incredibly crude and the infrastructure non-existent. But just getting geosync space travel in place, and then asteroid space travel in place, it should make it relatively practical to have real colonies.

--

Re:The public and the possibilities

[DHartung]

Reality Master sez:
There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.

I hear you (and believe me, I'm just as pragmatic). But the main thing isn't that the average joe thinks Mars is uninteresting. In fact, the preponderance of space operas like Armageddon and Mission to Mars (!) argues against that. The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.

There's also a small contingent who use the red herring argument that "we should solve our problems on Earth first" (as if we will ever have all humanity's, or even just America's, problems solved). It even shows up here at /. all too frequently.

And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).

That's the usual ex post facto justification. Truthfully, the benefits come less in terms of specific inventions ("Tang! Space pens!") than in the development of a high-tech infrastructure and high-tech workforce to build it. (Hey kids! Where did the internet come from?) Eventually those people go into other lines of work and apply the knowledge they've gained. At the same time, the wider culture gains in terms of being challenged by the exploration. Zubrin talks of the Western Frontier's importance to the US, for example.

It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.

Perhaps. On the other hand, governments have done more for us in terms of space exploration so far than any private company. This may be a valid analogy, but so far it's failed to prove out.

Even counting the private satellite business and its LEO/GEO applications, from weather to communications, there's extremely limited and narrow-minded interest in space from the private sector. The most recent great hope for space privatization, including the financing of efforts to develop true low-cost launch systems, has crumbled in the face of the failure of Iridium. Just this last week, Gary Hudson left Rotary Rocket (the most promising candidate, with a flying vehicle), and Globalstar effectively began to run out of money. Without LEO constellations to launch, there's no investment potential in cheap rocketry.

And without cheap rocketry, we're stuck waiting for governments to do the right thing.

----

Re:The public and the possibilities

[Reality Master 101]

The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.

I think that's a good point. If the cost was reasonable, then the public probably would get behind it.

Part of the problem, too, is that there really isn't any uncertainty about going to Mars. When it came to the moon, it really was blazing a new trail and the "audacity" aspect could take hold of the public's imagination.

Nowadays, does anyone really doubt that we could get people to Mars and back given enough money? Since there's no mystery involved, it really comes down to (as you imply) a cost-benefit analysis. The big question is whether the public would spring for even the modest budget (by Apollo standards) that it would take to go to Mars, and I just don't feel it myself.

Maybe there is some middle ground. Like make a sustainable colony part of the mission. I think the concept of "sustainable" would really sell to the public, because then it doesn't look like "an endless money pit just to bring home some rocks". The problem is that Mars (as another poster pointed out) is just not that profitable, compared to asteroid mining or micro-grav manufacturing.

My gut feeling is that Mars isn't going to happen until we are mining asteroids, which will help establish infrastructure and (as you also point out) give us cheap rocketry.

--

Re:At last it is confirmed!

[StevenMaurer]

I know you meant it completely as a joke, but there's actually a pretty serious issue in there as well.

Mars, the most habitable plant in the Solar System besides ours, is a lot like Antarctica - except it doesn't have breathable air, a viable biosphere, natural resources (including any significant quantity of water). It's a year-long multi-million dollar space ride away from these too, which makes rescues impossible (not to mention really expensive vacations).

After all the starry-eyed idealism has worn off, who would actually want to live there? Would you?

I predict the upper reaches of Alaska or the Northwest Territories and the depths of Antarctica will be populated long before any significant settlement of Mars will occur (if ever).

We'd better take care of this planet. It's really the only good one out there.

Red Mars, Antarctica, et al.

[pq]

Actually, Red Mars is rewarding if you stick it out. I'm told Green and especially Blue really dragged, but the technological innovation in Red is pretty good. And the character development actually sucked in some non-SF fans for long enough to give them a taste of good ideas.

Personally, I really liked Antarctica too - he flies off the handle at the very end, where he spouts off about "What works for Antarctica, works for the rest of the planet", but barring that, it was a good read. Not a raw SF read, but definitely a good read. I guess it helps that I would sympathize with eco-terrorists and don't own an SUV myself... it might be a bit too wide-eyed radical eco-hippie for some tastes.

Just the one way to find out - try it! Its not a big waste.

Re:At last it is confirmed!

[Soko]

I am Canadian, and bud you hit the nail on the head. I was laughing all the way through your comment.

But, on the other hand, we have cultural diversity, a tolerant society, snow, universal health care, great beer, snow, not many gun problems, snow, and ummmmm....snow. Oh, and we have lots of women up here and all of them are drop dead gorgeous - it's just hard to tell with them in parkas and mukluks all the time.

BTW, we _were_ going to go to Mars ourselved _in_ a Zamboni, but we didn't have enough room for beer. And we spent the money on hospitals.

P.S. My buddy in the border patrol will be checking for that hash with a rubber glove.

Mars Simulation? Do something useful!

[Nrrd^2]

This looks like the most expensive game of "make believe" I've ever seen.

"Look everyone! I made a planetary habitat out of my couch cushions! Wanna come over and pretend we're on Mars?"

Can't the space advocacy groups concentrate on something useful (if boring) like inexpensive commercial transportation to orbit?

Peruvian hash?

[MrEd]

"Hey you! What the hell are you bringing Peruvian hash into Canada for? ..."

...

You can get better shit in BC!

And if you don't know what British Columbia is, then I give up.

Re:Peruvian hash?

[Golias]

First my comment was moderated up as "funny" three times, probably by Canadians with a sense of humor.

Then my comment was modded up as "informative" by somebody... yea, I thought that was funny, too. For not a single moment was my post intended to be factual.

In meta-moderation, it was slapped all the way back down to 2 for being "flamebait", in spite of the fact that lots of Canadians laughed; only one person flamed me, and it appears that he is not even Canadian.

Clue to Slashdot: Meta-moderation is not helping.

Re:LEO -- some answers for you

[Nrrd^2]

Sadly, there's not much up there to justify a microgravity research and manufacturing infrastructure just yet. There are a few possibilities though (any errors are due to my haste -- always rely on peer-reviewed publications):

Materials processing for the mixing of new alloys, chemicals, drugs, etc. can be done in a "containerless" environment, where the reagents are suspended in a magnetic field and manipulated without gravity yanking the substances down by mass.

Along those lines, initial experiments (to be expanded on in the ever-under-construction Space Station) have indicated that you can build molecules atom-by-atom in these containerless environments and make substances which would not easily (or even possibly) form in a 1-Gravity environment. This opens some exciting possibilities since, thanks to the Human Genome Project, we're starting to understand just how WE're put together atom-by-atom. Given the ability to custom-make organic materials, gene therapy to target specific ailments would be greatly assisted by such microgravity research labs. That's not to say that we'll come across something which can't be made on Earth, rather that being able to build what you want from scratch (instead of messing about with aproximations in a lab) would help speed up the experiementation process.

Microgravity research has already helped some groups in understanding their materials processing better (metals, rubbers, industrial plastics, medical assistance) and accelerated their own research. That's why companies such as SpaceHab and facilities such as Russian, European and (a few) American automated research capsules have launched full of commercially (and some government) funded experiements.

Another interesting research area is in combustion. The idea is: Compare combustion on Earth with a duplicate experiment environment in microgravity. What difference are seen? What is due to the 1-G field of Earth and what is due to properties of combustion which have so far gone unnoticed (since we're all stuck in that 1-G environment)? Even if combustion research resulted in improved efficiencies of just 1% for all new internal combustion engines, the annual fuel savings alone could justify a space research lab.

Going back to that atom-by-atom stuff, what would computer chips be like if you could build them up with raw materials, instead of scratching them out of a wafer of Silicon? Would it be possible to stick a Cray on your Palm Vx?

Along those lines, given a rarefied vacuum using a "wake shield" or other such spiffy device (do a web search on "wake shield facility") Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) wafers can be 'grown' cost effectively in large quantities. These can be used in the manufacture of computer chips in theory, though only a few wafers have been constructed in the on-orbit facilities to date, so testing remains to be done.

There are quite a few other items but, returning to your question, none of them have been demonstrated to date.

I like to think of microgravity research and manufacturing in context with the original Sputnik launch: Many people wondered what all the fuss was about with this "beeping orange" whizzing overhead. No one (well, aside from Arthur C. Clarke ;-) forsaw wonders we take for granted today like telecommunications and direct-broadcast satellites. You can use a Globalstar (www.globalstar.com) telephone to call from anywhere on the planet, to anywhere on the planet, or use an ORBCOMM (www.orbcomm.com or www.orbital.com) device to send e-mail anywhere-to-anywhere.

GPS? Weather satellites? Remote Sensing to improve crops? On-orbit imagery to "keep the peace" ;-) or understand our environment better? There are a LOT of direct (and highly profitable) benefits which have come from human endeavours in space and all of them were impossible at some point.

If you'd be interested in reading more, I don't have any web links, but do have quite a few technical references you could find in any university library. Just say the word and I'll post 'em for you.

Oh, and you're right about drop-towers and parabolic flights: They're great for manufacturing and experimenting with some things, but most materials processing and medical experiments require more than a few seconds time. That's why the fates invented microgravity ;-)

How will they get anything done?

[boinger]

...with the constant flamewars going on about "out" vs "oot" and "about" vs "aboot"...Or maybe that's just here in Slashdotland.

no crash landiing

[slickwillie]

"being flown up to the crater by the US Marine corp"

Let's hope the Marines can do a better job at landing the thing than NASA.

Public Awareness and ... Arctic Circle?

[Tyrannosaurus]

I would think that if one wanted public awareness increased, they would not hold demos in the most god-forsaken spots on earth. Maybe we can fly the channel 9 news chopper over there...

On a more positive note, I have to applaud any effort to get more space exploration going. The earth is pretty played out for explorers...

Re:What about the moon?

[torpor]

I didn't say that the moon had no resources. I said that it has very little of the resources needed to maintain a self-sustaining colony.

Big difference.

flash floods, but does it rain?

[new500]

New Scientist also reports that flash floods may be occuring on Mars, scarring its terrain.

Well it may not rain (sorry, my bad) But one for the geophysicists and definitely an article which poses some questions Discovery Channel would sure love to be able to answer, *Exclusive* :-)

At last it is confirmed!

[Golias]

Canada is a lot like Mars.

Really cold, nothing to do, nowhere to go, and everybody stays inside the shelter at all times unless wearing special protective clothing.

Also, they need women.

(Kind of makes me wonder if there are any spots on the Martian "Ice Caps" that are smooth enough to play hockey on... and what is the cost of putting a zamboni on Mars?)

P.S. Take it easy Canadians, I am only kidding. I would never really want to bad-mouth your charming little "country", or your amusingly xenophobic culture. If you took offense at my comments about what a silly place Canada is, I humbly apologize.

P.P.S. I know that didn't look like much of an apology. Sorry.

(Oh, and if you happen to be on the Canadian border patrol, let me tell you in advance that I have no fruit of vegitables in the car to declare... just a fat bag of Peruvian hash and a whole trunkload full of guns.)

Re:What about the moon?

[torpor]

I too once had this same perspective, until a wisened Slashdotter pointed out to me that the case for Mars, and against the Moon, has been madeq quite well in Zubrins book "The Case for Mars" (good title, eh?).

Essentially, what it boils down to, is that the Moon has very little of the resources needed to sustain a colony by itself, whereas Mars has an ample abundance of such things as hydrogen and carbon.

Plus, it doesn't take very much more effort to get to Mars than it does the Moon.

And, lastly, self-sufficiency is the name of the game. Being able to manufacture ones own fuel *on* Mars is a big part of what's required to stay there and do enough research, and this is not something that'd happen if we put the beans into setting up a base on the Moon. It may one day be that Mars will be a strong provider of resources for other bases, including the Moon and Asteroid Belt, and therefore it makes more sense to get there, set up base, learn how to be self-sufficient on the only other habitable planet in our system, etc.

Get Zubrins book (I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy) and check it out. It's an astonishingly good read, and it convinced me that Mars could actually happen within my lifetime.

Re:And why did they choose Canada?

[mduell]

There not just looking for life, they are looking for intelligent life. (triple rim shot)

Mark Duell

Progression of Technology?

[Accipiter]

Only 6.7% believe man will successfully make the jump to Mars jump within the next five years. Another 23.8% believe such a space feat will never be accomplished.

Um, do those 23.8% actually believe that the advancement of technology has just STOPPED?

'Never' is quite a long time. It seems a bit ignorant/short-sighted/closed-minded to believe that man will 'NEVER' reach Mars. Long ago, people believed if a man went faster than 40 Miles per Hour, he would suffocate.

Good Thing they were proven wrong, eh?

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

Which other projects?

[Tau Zero]

What happened to the Mars lander we sent out there? Did we ever regain control of it again?

Which lander? Mars Polar Lander? The latest analysis I've seen is that it almost certainly crash-landed and was destroyed. As for the other landers, the little one with the Sojourner rover was a success (but would have been a hell of a lot more useful if it had carried nuclear generators instead of chemical batteries, to keep everything alive through the cold Martian nights), and the Viking landers were phenomenal successes.
--
Ancient Goth: Someone who overthrew the Roman Empire.

Mars is better than Antarctica.

[TheDullBlade]

Mars is a good place to settle because there's not much weather to worry about.

Sure the winds blow fast, but not hard (there's just not enough air). The biggest thing you have to worry about is long periods of overcast skies and poor visibility from the dust storms (better than the months-long winter-night of the arctic and antarctic).

You can pitch your giant tents or burrow in the low gravity and live indoors. Imagine giant buildings that are like a cross between a greenhouse and a mall, and I think you've got a fair idea of what Mars will be like for everyone but the first few pioneers (and there may never be uncomfortable pioneers; it makes more sense to me to just drop construction robots made in space from materials mined from asteroids).

Sure, the effort of moving people there is pretty rough, but practically everything else is easier once you get started. That's mostly due to the gravity; it'll be much easier to build huge buildings on Mars. I imagine there will be some pretty spectacular architecture due to this. Also, there probably won't be any natural disasters to worry about either, until we start terraforming.

In short, dead planets put up less of a fight.

Kim Stanley Robinson

[tealover]

wrote a book based on the Artic setting. Kim is well renowned for his Mars trilogy, of course. I tried getting through Red Mars but I was bored out of my mind by pg 200. The book spent too much time trying to get me to know the characters that Kim failed to excite me about the prospect of landing on Mars. How was his Antartic book?

Re:Thank you very much -- References

[Nrrd^2]

Glad to be a help.

First off, you can find out a lot about contemporary events through reading "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (affectionately known as Aviation Leak for their bleeding-edge news reputation), "Space News" or visting www.spacer.com

Most of the best stuff I've found was printed back in the mid to late 80s, since everyone was anticipating Space Station Freedom and the incredible research and manufacturing opportunities which would result. 15 years later, you'll find many of the journal articles are quite similar (yes, we're still waiting).

Anyhow, some relevant journal articles include:

R. Kohli, L.A. Ranceitelli, "Materials Processing in Space", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences (AAS), 86-442, pp. 1753-1759 (1986).

E.M. Jones, "Putting Space Resrouces to Work", Acta Astronautica, 26, pp.16-18 (1992).

G.E. Maryniak, "Harvesting Nonterrestrial Resources - A Status Report", AAS, 86-341, pp. 1735-1749 (1986).

B.Iannotta, "Shuttle Serves as Fertile Ground for Medical Research", Space News, p.11, July 31 (1995).

M.E. Vaucher, "Business Considerations Affecting the Future of Space Manufacturing", AAS, 86-444, pp.1761-1777.

...and for some off-planet stuff:

C.O'Dale, "The Development of a Commercial Lunar Infrastruture", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 51, pp.49-56 (1998).

Those should give you a good start. Look in the bibliography section of each of these papers for leads to many more.

Happy reading!

Interest in Developing Space

[meckardt]

There are a number of organizations who are interested in developing space for its commercial applications. These include (but are not limited to):

• Artemis Society
• PERMANENT
• The Mars Society
• The Island One Society
• The Lunar Society

At the current time, there is to obvious economic benifit to going beyond geosyncronous orbit. Yet all of these organizations believe that we should so proceed. Why? Because there are abundant resources available on the moon, Mars, and asteroids. No, they are not in the forms that we are used to using them, but they are the same 100 odd elements of which everything here on Earth is made. I will not repeat the cases for going to the various bodies in our solar system... the different organizations which I listed above, and others like them, make a better case that I have time or space for here.

Currently, the chief restriction to executing any of these exploration and development programs is the high cost of getting materials into orbit. Face it, the space shuttle is overpriced, and alternative launch vehicles are not much better. However, several private firms (in addition to several government contractors) are in a race to develope low cost launch systems. Will they succeed? Almost certainly so within the next five years.

And once we have low cost (relative term) launch systems, I expect we will see a space tourism market begin. That will probably be the early economic force in the development of space.

And beyond that? As Robert Heinlein said in his writing, "Once you reach Low Earth Orbit, you are half way to anywhere in the Solar System."

Gonzo

Re:hrrmm...

[NaughtyEddie]

Interesting that you guys call them "English" measurements. The English - who haven't used them in engineering for many years - call them "Imperial" measurements (anyone remember the Empire? ;) We only use them for measuring beer these days (and a pint is 20 fl oz compared to the US's measly 16 fl oz pint).