Mars to Stay

Mars to Stay is the proposal that astronauts sent to Mars for the first time should stay there indefinitely, both to reduce mission cost and to ensure permanent settlement of Mars. Among many other notable Mars to Stay advocates, former Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin has been particularly outspoken, suggesting in numerous forums "Forget the Moon, Let’s Head to Mars!"^[1] The Mars Underground, Mars Homestead Foundation, and Mars Artists Community have also adopted Mars to Stay policy initiatives.^[2] The earliest formal outline of a Mars to Stay mission architecture was given at the Case for Mars VI Workshop in 1990, during a presentation by George Herbert titled "One Way to Mars."^[3]

Concept for NASA Design Reference Mission Architecture 5.0 (2009)

Proposals

Under a Mars to Stay mission architecture the first humans to travel to Mars would be composed of a six-person team. After this initial landing subsequent missions over five years will raise the number of persons on the Martian surface to 30, thereby beginning an organically evolving Martian settlement. Since the Martian surface offers all the natural resources and elements necessary to sustain human society—unlike, for example the moon—a permanent Martian settlement is thought to be the most effective way to ensure humankind becomes a space-faring, multi-planet species. Through the use of digital fabricators and in vitro fertilization it is assumed a permanent human settlement on Mars can grow organically from an original thirty to forty pioneers.^[4]

A Mars exploration program following Aldrin's Mars to Stay initiative would enlist astronauts in the following timeline:

Age 30: an offer to help settle Mars is extended to select pioneers
Age 30-35: training and social conditioning for long-duration isolation and time-delay communications
Age 35: launch three married couples to Mars; followed in subsequent years by a dozen or more couples
Age 35-65: development of sheltered underground living spaces; artificial insemination ensures genetic diversity
Age 65: an offer to return to Earth or retire on Mars is given to first generation settlers

As Aldrin has said, "…who knows what advances will have taken place. The first generation can retire there, or maybe we can bring them back."^[4]

"Hundred Year Starship Initiative"
On October 2010 NASA Ames Research Center Director Pete Worden introduced the Hundred Year Starship initiative, a project to embark on a one-way mission from Earth to Mars by 2030.^[5] The astronauts would be sent supplies from Earth on a regular basis.^[6]

Initial and permanent settlement

Initial explorers leave equipment in orbit and at landing zones scattered considerable distances from the main settlement. Subsequent missions therefore are assumed to become easier and safer to undertake, with the likelihood of back-up equipment being present if accidents in transit or landing occur.

Large subsurface, pressurized habitats would be the first step toward human settlement; as Dr. Robert Zubrin suggests in the first chapter of his book Mars Direct these structures can be built as Roman-style atria in mountainsides or underground with easily produced Martian brick. During and after this initial phase of habitat construction, hard-plastic radiation- and abrasion-resistant geodesic domes could be deployed on the surface for eventual habitation and crop growth. Nascent industry would begin using indigenous resources: the manufacture of plastics, ceramics and glass could be easily achieved.

The longer-term work of terraforming Mars requires an initial phase of global warming to release atmosphere from the Martian regolith and to create a water-cycle. Three methods of global warming are described by Zubrin, who suggests they are best deployed in tandem: orbital mirrors to heat the surface; factories on the ground to pump halocarbons into the atmosphere; and the seeding of bacteria which can metabolize water, nitrogen and carbon to produce ammonia and methane (these gases would aid in global warming). While the work of terraforming Mars is on-going, robust settlement of Mars can continue.

The Case for Mars acknowledges any Martian colony will be partially Earth-dependent for centuries. However, Zubrin suggests Mars may be profitable for two reasons. First, it may contain concentrated supplies of metals equal to or of greater value than silver, which have not been subjected to millennia of human scavenging; it is suggested such ores may be sold on Earth for profit. Secondly, the concentration of deuterium–an extremely expensive but essential fuel for the nuclear power industry–is five times greater on Mars. Humans emigrating to Mars, under this paradigm, thus have an assured industry; it is assumed the planet will be a magnet for settlers as wage costs will be high. Because of the labor shortage on Mars and its subsequent high pay-scale, Martian civilization and the value placed upon each individual's productivity is proposed as a future engine of both technological and social advancement.”

Risks

In the fifth chapter of "Mars Direct", Zubrin dismisses the idea that radiation and zero-gravity are unduly hazardous. He claims that cancer rates do increase for astronauts who have spent extensive time in space, but only marginally. Similarly, while zero-gravity presents challenges, near total recovery of musculature and immune system vitality is assumed once on the Martian surface. Back-contamination — humans acquiring and spreading Martian viruses — is described as "just plain nuts", because there are no host organisms on Mars for disease organisms to have evolved.

In the same chapter, Zubrin decisively denounces and rejects suggestions that the Moon should be used as waypoint to Mars or as a preliminary training area. "It is ultimately much easier to journey to Mars from low Earth orbit than from the moon and using the latter as a staging point is a pointless diversion of resources." While the Moon may superficially appear a good place to perfect Mars exploration and habitation techniques, the two bodies are radically different. The moon has no atmosphere, no analogous geology and a much greater temperature range and rotational period of illumination. It is argued Antarctica, desert areas of Earth, and precisely controlled chilled vacuum chambers on easily accessible NASA centers on Earth provide much better training grounds at lesser cost.

Public reception

"Should the United States space program send a mission to Mars, those astronauts should be prepared to stay there," said Lunar astronaut Buzz Aldrin during a high-profile, widely reported interview on "Mars to Stay" initiatives.^[7] The time and expense required to send astronauts to Mars, argues Aldrin, "warrants more than a brief sojourn, so those who are on board should think of themselves as pioneers. Like the Pilgrims who came to the New World or the families who headed to the Wild West, they should not plan on coming back home." While the Moon is a shorter trip of two or three days, according to Mars advocates, it offers virtually no potential for independent settlements. Studies have found that Mars, on the other hand, has vast reserves of frozen water, all of the basic elements, and more closely mimics both gravitational and illumination conditions on Earth. "It is easier to subsist, to provide the support needed for people there than on the Moon." In an interview with reporters, the second man to set foot on the Moon said the Red Planet offered far greater potential than Earth's satellite as a place for habitation.

"If we are going to put a few people down there and ensure their appropriate safety, would you then go through all that trouble and then bring them back immediately, after a year, a year and a half?" Aldrin asks. "They need to go there more with the psychology of knowing that you are a pioneering settler and you don't look forward to go back home again after a couple of years," he said.^[8]

The most comprehensive statement of a rationale for "Mars to Stay" was laid out by Dr. Aldrin in a May 2009 Popular Mechanics article, as follows:

"The agency’s current Vision for Space Exploration will waste decades and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reach the moon by 2020—a glorified rehash of what we did 40 years ago. Instead of a steppingstone to Mars, NASA’s current lunar plan is a detour. It will derail our Mars effort, siphoning off money and engineering talent for the next two decades. If we aspire to a long-term human presence on Mars—and I believe that should be our overarching goal for the foreseeable future—we must drastically change our focus. Our purely exploratory efforts should aim higher than a place we’ve already set foot on six times. In recent years my philosophy on colonizing Mars has evolved. I now believe that human visitors to the Red Planet should commit to staying there permanently. One-way tickets to Mars will make the missions technically easier and less expensive and get us there sooner. More importantly, they will ensure that our Martian outpost steadily grows as more homesteaders arrive. Instead of explorers, one-way Mars travelers will be 21st-century pilgrims, pioneering a new way of life. It will take a special kind of person. Instead of the traditional pilot/ scientist/engineer, Martian homesteaders will be selected more for their personalities—flexible, inventive and determined in the face of unpredictability. In short, survivors.”^[9]

The Mars Artists Community has adopted Mars to Stay as their primary policy initiative.^[10] During a 2009 public hearing of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee at which Dr. Robert Zubrin presented a summary of the arguments in book The Case for Mars, dozens of placards reading "Mars Direct Cowards Return to the Moon" were placed throughout the Carnegie Institute.^[11] The passionate uproar among space exploration advocates - both favorable and critical - resulted in the Mars Artists Community creating several dozen more designs, with such slogans as, "Traitors Return to Earth" and "What Would Zheng He Do?"

Mars Artists Design, August 2009.

In October 2009, Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle wrote of 'Mars to Stay' as perhaps the only program which can revitalize America's space program:

"What if NASA could land astronauts on Mars in a decade, for not ridiculously more money than the $10 billion the agency spends annually on human spaceflight? It's possible, say some space buffs, although there's a catch. The astronauts we'd send would never come home. Relieving NASA of the need to send fuel and rocketry to blast humans off the Martian surface, which has slightly more than twice the gravity of the moon, would actually reduce costs by about a factor of 10, by some estimates."^[12]

Hard Science Fiction writer Mike Brotherton has found "Mars to Stay" appealing for both economic and safety reasons, but more emphatically, as a fulfillment of the ultimate mandate by which "our manned space program is sold, at least philosophically and long-term, as a step to colonizing other worlds." Two thirds of the respondents to a poll on his website expressed interest in a one-way ticket to Mars "if mission parameters are well-defined" (not suicidal).^[13]

In June 2010 Buzz Aldrin gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which he restated Mars to Stay:

"Did the Pilgrims on the Mayflower sit around Plymouth Rock waiting for a return trip? They came here to settle. And that’s what we should be doing on Mars. When you go to Mars, you need to have made the decision that you’re there permanently. The more people we have there, the more it can become a sustaining environment. Except for very rare exceptions, the people who go to Mars shouldn’t be coming back. Once you get on the surface, you’re there."^[14]

"New York Times" op-eds

"Mars to Stay" has been explicitly proposed by two op-ed pieces in the "New York Times".

"A One-Way Ticket to Mars" Krauss, Lawrence. New York Times Op-Ed, Sept 1, 2009:"

Following a similar line of argument to Buzz Aldrin, Lawrence Krauss asks in an Op-Ed, "Why are we so interested in bringing the Mars astronauts home again?".^[15] While the idea of sending astronauts aloft never to return may be jarring upon first hearing, the rationale for one-way exploration and settlement trips has both historical and practical roots. For example, colonists and pilgrims seldom set off to the New World with the expectation of a return trip. As Lawrence Krauss writes, "To boldly go where no one has gone before does not require coming home again."

Dr. Krauss modifies the standard "Mars to Stay" architecture by "restricting the voyage to older astronauts, whose longevity is limited. Here again, I have found a significant fraction of scientists older than 65 who would be willing to live out their remaining years on the red planet or elsewhere." This initial first generation of elderly astronauts would accept higher radiation doses while building eventual subsurface habitats, presumably, because the effects of increased radiation would not affect them during the remainder of their lives.

"If it sounds unrealistic to suggest that astronauts would be willing to leave home never to return alive, then consider the results of several informal surveys I and several colleagues have conducted recently. One of my peers in Arizona recently accompanied a group of scientists and engineers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on a geological field trip. During the day, he asked how many would be willing to go on a one-way mission into space. Every member of the group raised his hand." Krauss, Lawrence. New York Times Op-Ed "A One-Way Ticket to Mars"^[15]

Additional immediate and pragmatic reasons to consider one-way human space exploration missions are explored by Krauss. Since much of the cost of a voyage to Mars will be spent on coming home again, if the fuel for the return is carried onboard, this greatly increases the mission mass requirement - which in turn requires even more fuel. "Human space travel is so expensive and so dangerous" according to Krauss, "we are going to need novel, even extreme solutions if we really want to expand the range of human civilization beyond our own planet." Delivering food and supplies to pioneers via unmanned spacecraft is less expensive than designing an immediate return trip.

"Life (and Death) on Mars," Davies, Paul. New York Times Op-Ed, January 15, 2004:"

In an earlier 2004 Op-Ed for the New York Times, Paul Davies motivation for the less expensive, permanent "one-way to stay option" arises from a theme common in "Mars to Stay" advocacy: "Mars is one of the few accessible places beyond Earth that could have sustained life [...and] alone among our sister planets, it is able to support a permanent human presence."

"Why is going to Mars so expensive? Mainly it's the distance from Earth. At its closest point in orbit, Mars lies 35 million miles away from us, necessitating a journey of many months, whereas reaching the Moon requires just a few days' flight. On top of this, Mars has a surface gravity that, though only 38 percent of Earth's, is much greater than the Moon's. It takes a lot of fuel to blast off Mars and get back home. If the propellant has to be transported there from Earth, costs of a launching soar.
Without some radical improvements in technology, the prospects for sending astronauts on a round-trip to Mars any time soon are slim, whatever the presidential rhetoric. What's more, the president's suggestion of using the Moon as a base — a place to assemble equipment and produce fuel for a Mars mission less expensively — has the potential to turn into a costly sideshow. There is, however, an obvious way to slash the costs and bring Mars within reach of early manned exploration. The answer lies with a one-way mission."^[16]

Under Davies' plan an initial colony of four astronauts equipped with a small nuclear reactor and a couple of rover vehicles would make their own oxygen, grow food, and even initiate building projects using local raw materials. Supplemented by food shipments, medical supplies, and replacement gadgets from Earth, the colony would be indefinitely sustained. Davies argues that since, "some people gleefully dice with death in the name of sport or adventure [and since] dangerous occupations that reduce life expectancy through exposure to hazardous conditions or substances are commonplace," we ought to not find the risks involved in a Mars to Stay architecture unusual.

"A century ago, explorers set out to trek across Antarctica in the full knowledge that they could die in the process, and that even if they succeeded their health might be irreversibly harmed. Yet governments and scientific societies were willing sponsors of these enterprises." Asks Davies, "Why should it be different today?"

References

^ Buzz Aldrin Speaks Out: Forget the Moon, Let’s Head to Mars, by Eliza Strickland, 26 June 2006, Discover Magazine
^ "Mars Underground" (Five Part Series), YouTube
^ "One Way to Mars," The Case for Mars VI Workshop, 1990.^{[dead link]}
^ ^a ^b "Mars pioneers should stay there permanently, says Buzz Aldrin". physorg.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
^ "NASA Planning One-Way Manned Mission to Mars". AOL News. October 27, 2010. Retrieved 2010-10-31. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
^ "The Hundred Year Starship: The Nasa mission that will take astronauts to Mars and leave them there forever". Daily Mail. October 29, 2010. Retrieved 2010-10-31. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
^ "Purchase a Lovely New Home On...Mars?". popsci.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010. {{cite web}}: Text "Popular Science" ignored (help)
^ "Buzz Aldrin: Mars pioneers should stay there". cosmosmagazine.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010. {{cite web}}: Text "COSMOS magazine" ignored (help)
^ "Buzz Aldrin's Advice to the Augustine Commission - Plans for NASA from Buzz Aldrin - Popular Mechanics". popularmechanics.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
^ "Mars Artists Community: FAQ". titlesequences.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
^ "The Space Review: Found art". thespacereview.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
^ "Travel to Mars – on a one-way ticket? Some experts believe it's the only way to explore the red planet and save NASA". HoustonChronicle.com. Retrieved October 19, 2009.
^ "Would You Accept a One-Way Ticket to Mars?". mikebrotherton.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
^ "Buzz Aldrin Is Not All That Impressed With Walking on the Moon". Vanity Fair. June 25, 2010.
^ ^a ^b Krauss, Lawrence (August 31, 2009). "Op-Ed Contributor - A One-Way Ticket to Mars - NYTimes.com". nytimes.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
^ Davies, Paul (January 15, 2004). "Op-Ed Contributor - Life (and Death) on Mars - NYTimes.com". nytimes.com. Retrieved February 24, 2010. ^{[dead link]}