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

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?

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

[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.

----

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?

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.

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).