Destination Mars

Human explorers will set foot on the red planet one day. And it might be sooner than most of us realize.

by Kate Lunau on Friday, September 17, 2010 9:00am - 0 Comments

Pascal Lee/Mars Institute/Haught NASA/JPL/ Nadav Neuhaus

Viewed through a telescope on a clear night, the planet Mars glows a soft, dullish red. It seems foreign and strange, but familiar, too: like Earth, Mars has polar ice caps, clouds drifting in its thin atmosphere (even snow), and changing seasons. Its day is just 40 minutes longer than our own. And even though it’s now a freeze-dried wasteland, a growing body of evidence suggests Mars was once wet and warm, and might have harboured life around the same time life sprung up here. Human explorers are bound to set foot on Mars one day. And it might be sooner than most of us think.

But our neighbouring planet, fourth from the sun, is also unimaginably remote: at its closest point in orbit to Earth, which happens only once every 26 months or so, Mars is still about 200 times farther away than the moon. At best, it would take a manned spacecraft roughly six months to reach it. By comparison, “the moon is three days away,” says Bret Drake, who leads mission planning and analysis for the Constellation Program at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. “You can go any time, and if things go wrong, you can return any time.” Once a spaceship left Earth’s orbit for Mars, there’d be no turning back.

On the surface, astronauts might have to contend with everything from swirling dust storms to blasts of radiation from powerful cosmic rays. Their research would be a scientific bonanza, teaching us about our solar system, about the genesis of life on Earth and maybe even whether life exists on Mars, or ever did. Observing how the crew’s bodies change in reduced Martian gravity could tell us if it’s really possible to survive for years on end in space. They’d have to wait over a year until the planets lined up to come back, making it a 2½ year trip, all told. If something went seriously wrong, there’d be little to no hope of rescue.

Teams of scientists and specialists from around the world are already working on projects that tackle some of the biggest challenges of a Mars mission, changing the way we think about space travel, about human endurance and about how we might live someday beyond the bonds of Earth. At the Kennedy Space Center in April, U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a historic speech on space exploration. “We’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history,” he said. “By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.”

Space-age luminaries like Buzz Aldrin—who, along with Neil Armstrong, was the first human to set foot on the moon, in 1969—call it our next frontier. “Mars is the only other place that approaches conditions here,” Aldrin, 80, told Maclean’s. “It’s much closer to Earth than Venus or Mercury,” the only other rocky planets in our solar system. Unlike other destinations, “you can imagine astronauts on the surface of Mars, moving and working,” says Richard Zurek, chief scientist for the Mars Program Office at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “I truly believe the Mars astronauts are alive today,” says Canadian astronaut Robert Thirsk. “They’re probably in elementary school right now.”

In June, six men entered a sealed isolation chamber in the outskirts of Moscow, to remain there for 520 days. The Mars500 study, a joint effort of the European Space Agency and the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems, is an attempt to recreate the mental and physical stresses of long-duration space travel, and the effects of extreme isolation. (These lessons also come in handy on Earth: NASA is lending its expertise to help 33 Chilean miners now trapped below ground, expected to be there for up to four months until rescuers can reach them.)

On their simulated mission to Mars, the men—three Russians, two Europeans and one Chinese—only have personal contact with each other. A 20-minute delay is built into communications with the control centre, the same length of time it takes for messages to travel one way between Mars and Earth. The habitat’s main living quarters, where each man has his own tiny bunk, is just 3.6 by 20 m.

In one diary entry in July, French engineer Romain Charles wrote about spending his 32nd birthday in isolation. On his last visit home, “I received some presents for my first birthday in the modules, for [Christmas] and also for my next birthday in 2011,” he writes. “Now here I am with a lot of gifts just under my bed and nothing to stop me from opening them.” Entering the living room, he found his crewmate, Italian-Colombian engineer Diego Urbina. As a surprise, Charles recounts, Urbina had taken a photo of an astronaut, “changed his face to mine and the flag for the French one,” and asked all the crew to sign it. “He knew that since I was nine or 10 years old I wanted to go to space and he made this dream come true in a way.”

Like the Mars500 group, the first team to go to Mars might have four to six members, Drake says, and a complementary set of skills: a commander, an engineer, a geologist and a doctor is a likely mix. They’d almost certainly be multinational and include both men and women. And we can only hope they get along as well as the Mars500 team apparently does. “It’s going to be a very isolated spacecraft, away from family and friends,” says Thirsk, who spent six months aboard the International Space Station last year, becoming the first Canadian to fly a long-duration mission there. Thirsk could often speak to his family back home, a luxury they won’t have.

If there’s friction among the crew, reaching a mediator might not be possible either. Even when psychologists are available, astronauts “often try to hide emotional problems, out of fear they’ll be grounded,” Mary Roach writes in her new book, Packing for Mars, and stressed-out astronauts have been known to vent their frustrations at mission control. Conflict resolution software, in which “the computer acts as a therapist,” might be helpful, says Dr. Jeffrey Sutton, director of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute. It would give astronauts the chance to play out conflicts—hypothetical or real—and explore outcomes with a machine, instead of on a crewmate.

When Thirsk was on the ISS, he spent long moments gazing down at Earth. “I was amazed by its beauty,” he says. “The oceans are blue, but they’re 100 shades of blue. You see incredible patterns in the desert: 100 shades of brown, gold and red. It’s so heartwarming to see such a beautiful planet, and all the signs of life down there.” This is common among astronauts, who tend to say that seeing Earth is the greatest benefit of their time in space, says Dr. Nick Kanas, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco and an expert in astronaut psychology. It can be calming and restorative, he says, imparting “a sense of history, of a lack of boundaries, and of the beauty of Earth as a homeland.”

Astronauts going to Mars won’t have that benefit. They’ll be the first humans to see their home planet fade away, until it disappears into the blackness of space. (As they zoom toward Mars through permanent sunlight, they won’t even see any stars, Roach reports, just black.) “Nobody in the history of our existence has ever perceived Earth as an insignificant dot. We’ve either seen it as a beautiful ball, or we’re standing on it,” Kanas says. Nobody knows what the impact of “Earth out-of-view phenomenon” will be. “It might be nothing,” he says, “but it might be profound.”

Bookmark and Share
  • RagingRanter

    It should have happened in the 1990s, but the major powers got side-tracked by the Mir Space Station, and space exploration became space experimentation. A shame really. We seem to have lost our pioneering spirit that allowed us to land on the moon.

    • ColdStanding

      I totally agree. Never should have removed the protections that fostered the conditions allowing for advanced technological development of scientific ideas. It can't happen in a vacuum (sic), you know.

      At least we can trade our wheat for Camrys. Why, just the other day I enjoyed a delicious stew of seat cushion leather with an automatic transmission sauce. Heavenly.

    • braindrain1953

      Oh how young you must be. We should have been on Mars by the late 1970's. But something called the Vietnam War and plain bad politics stopped that drean dead in it's tracks!

      • Emily

        The US was in Vietnam when the moon flights took place.

  • Stan the Science Man

    Part of your title, "…Sooner Than You Think" is misleading. While you offer a lot of factual data, you yourself have offered no projected date.

    I interviewed four Canadian Scientists last march at the Canadian Space Agency and one of them stated that a Mars landing according to NASA could occur in 2030.

    "Sooner than you think" suggests sooner than 2030. I have been telling students that the landing on Mars will take place between 2017 and 2019. That is just my educated guess.

  • awesome!

    I hope it happpens by 2015! Or maybe just maybe the government and Nasa is covering this all up! What if we have already gone to Mars, who knows for sure. Rember the Government cannot be trusted!

  • Patrick Flannery

    I think we could expect some pretty significant technological spinoffs from a Mars mission. The Apollo missions certainly supplied some. Also, it is a good long-term goal to develop our capability to leave this planet if needed. There are a number of catastophes that could render it uninhabitable, many of them not preventable by us.

  • Kevin

    Just one small problem. The Earth is protected by our magnetic field (the moon too). Once the craft leaves this field there is no protection. Further, if there is a burst, from the sun, the whole mission would be toast. No one has come up with a solution to this fundamental problem which, if not solved, makes manned flight an impossibility.

    • Emily

      We could do Mars in much less time with an ion engine….and live underground.

      I don't know why people are so keen to believe things are impossible. Nothing is, you know.

      • Keith in Brampton

        OK; let's see you do time travel. Or step into an alternate universe.

        • Emily

          And you don't think that's possible?

          What if you'd told a Victorian gentleman he'd be able to watch world events as they happened [TV] or talk to someone on the other side of the planet [phone] or type letters to anywhere in the world? [email]

          It was science-fiction to the Victorians….it is commonplace to you.

  • scissorpaws

    No one reading this will live to see man set foot on Mars. I would guess 2100 if we're still around. The complications are emmense. If you doubt it go rent a copy of Apollo 13 and remind yourself of what fledgling little birds we really are. And the moon is one week away. It's a year to Mars. Impossible. Count yourself blessed if you get to see another moon landing, and then don't expect them it to be American.

    • Emily

      Oh far sooner than that.

    • Keith in Brampton

      Your typical iPod has more computational power than the computers on Apollo 13. We have come huge distances technologically in the intervening 40 years. We haven't been focussing on the types of technology we need for such a trip, but with the advances we've made and the exponential growth of knowledge, all we are lacking is the drive and determination – not the ability.

      • scissorpaws

        We're scrapping the shuttle and there is no viable alternative. Missions to the Space Station and satellites are by conventional rocket out of Europe or Russia. If there is another Moon Shot it will be by something very close to the Saturns that moved Neil and the rest in 1969. We've got better computers, but people still need to breathe air and they'll need 2 years worth, assuming you want them to come home again. They will need tons of water – even allowing for "recycling" – and food. That requires a much bigger bang than shooting something to the Moon for a one week cruise. No extra space for redundancies, which means every piece has to function perfectly from start to finish. I wish I could get that warranty on my car. For all our technological prowess we lost two shuttles and they only had to shoot up the well to near space; it took us three months to plug a hole under less than a mile of seawater. I know, we're going to have ion drives and plasma, and we should have those fusion reactors for energy too cheap to meter. What we've got is rockets von Braun would recognize and Maple 1 and Maple 2 in permanent mothballs and a shortage of nuclear isotopes for our hospitals. If we ran out of fossil fuels tomorrow we'd all be riding horses. Someone wrote – it could have been Arthur C Clarke – that we could have, in theory, had all the toys of 2001: A Space Odyssey by that year had we only avoided Vietnam and invested the resources in space. What he didn't say is that it would have taken us decades to build, thousands of near-space shots to move tons of steel and aluminum and water and air and tools and construction materials, hundreds of workers. Might have made us wish we'd just gone into Vietnam. It would have involved a shuttle a day going up instead of one every couple of years, and assuming everything went smoothly which nothing ever does. It's good to dream but I suspect we'll see the day when no human alive has ever walked on any place other than earth.

        • ColdStanding

          Exit Kennedy. Enter McNamara. End of story.

          • Emily

            We have the technology to do all of that. Vietnam is irrelevant.

    • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging_Ranter

      It's six months to Mars, from what I understand. I sure as hell wouldn't volunteer for it, but it can be done.

      • Emily

        Or a few weeks.

  • Wayne

    wow – amazing how many people don't keep on top of technology – a canadian will be coming to the rescue – listen to what I say now folks = next year the engine will be tested and Mars will be a short hop and jump that we can do anytime and all thanx to plasma :)

    • Emily

      Nautel?

  • Blacktop

    And so what? A bunch of red rock? We have far more importasnt things on earth to deal with. Once the astronauts were on the moon, ho hum.While IO am science oriented, I am allergic to stupidity. The moon was not made of green cheese and it was a great leap for the human spirit just to get that far. The rest is Buck Rogers.

    • ColdStanding

      Blacktop!! You held such promise! And to now see you write such things… Heartbreaking.

      It isn't do one thing or the other. It is to deploy productive resources and a scientifically educated populace to do both and thereby become better at both and other things besides.

      Man on the moon, ho hum. Sheesh.

      • Emily

        Unreal isn't it?

        Amazing Columbus wasn't held back by such nonsense.

      • Blacktop

        My position is that we don't need to send people. We can find out all we need to know with unmanned vehicles and do far more. Except for the human experience, there was not one thing learned from putting a man on the moon EXCEPT knowing that it could be done. The one valid point I heard was the consequent advances in technology that such a challenge demands. But then those advances don't need a human aboard.

        If you are harbouring thoughts of saving the human race from its follies, I'll bet those that are sent will have just as many follies. It's called human nature. We aren't all like Emily, with perfect knowledge.. Even if only send Emily (who is perfect) we can easily calculate the cost per pound if we knew the data. (DATA, where are you when you are needed?). The wise Captain Picard will guide you but I'm sorry, the budget will run out before you get there, so you will have to cirtcle Mars untiol your orbit decays. Farewell, Emily. No, I am afraid that it wouldn't work as an emigration device either.

        • Emily

          The cumulative distance covered by the Spirit rover in six years worth of exploration could have been covered by a human being, on foot, in a single day. All of the combined science performed by the rover, in six years, could have been performed by a single human scientist in under a week. Even worse, the NASA rover operators have logged literally HUNDREDS of situations where they have spotted items that looked very interesting, but they were unable to access them because the terrain was too steep, the ground too soft, or because they were more than a few dozen yards from the rovers planned path. A detour to look at an interesting rock that a human could do in minutes requires DAYS of planning and maneuvering with the rovers.

          Robots are a poor substitute for self-aware and curious scientists on the ground.

          So stop worrying about me, and focus on the reality of Mars.

  • ColdStanding

    "It might be nothing, but it might be profound."

    Oh, profoundity, though art but a puddle, a drop, a mist.
    To be Adam a new.
    Cortez, staring at the Pacific
    On a new planet
    Swimming would be my ken.

  • ColdStanding

    I am indeed tying space exploration to (not protectionism, which is a pejorative term common to the school of which von Hayek and Friedman are emblematic, but also von Nuemann of games theory infamy) a political insight that centers the economy upon increasing the capacity to physically implement scientific discoveries (not systematically shutting down the economy as a result of [erronious] statistical analysis).

    My comments do indeed go beyond reaching, because my comments are about reaching the beyond. Marie Coyne Antoinette's analogy is a classic example of the Great Lie. That you believe it suggests you may be beyond reach.

    • Emily

      Yes, let's keep everything all to ourselves, because we can afford to go to Mars all on our own without help?

      Noop….humanity will go to Mars, not just one country.

      • ColdStanding

        I am hardly suggesting a process of "keep everything all to ourselves."

  • Emily
    • Emily

      Should say 39….sorry.

  • Sophia

    I hope they don't burn up the earth with that ion engine that commenters are referring to.

    • Emily

      No, not a chance.

From Macleans