Terror Defense No Al Qaida Terror
Mars colonization isn’t feasible – radiation, space sickness, sustainability
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Perchlorate makes Mars uninhabitable
- AT: terraforming
- Terraforming fails – Mars does not have a magnetic field. Colonies would be destroyed by lethal doses of solar radiation
- No colonization- we can’t fund it
- No col- no money
- Colonization impossible – it costs hundreds of billions just for the mission
MarsGeneralMars colonization isn’t feasible – radiation, space sickness, sustainabilityLemind 14 Anna, University of Piraeus, 02.20.14 The Other Side of Mars Colonization: Potential Dangers of the Red Planet, http://www.learning-mind.com/the-other-side-of-mars-colonization-potential-dangers-of-the-red-planet/#Ay8spY2O4ifCbzcy.99♥Tina As the prospect of a permanent colony on Mars is getting closer with every new press release from the Mars One project, it probably makes sense to remember that any person who will move permanently to Mars will most likely die untimely and painful death.¶ Here are some things that are most likely to cause it (all kinds of technical problems are excluded from consideration):¶ First of all, the Mars colonists will be subjected to radiation before having set foot on the threshold of their new home. Technically, the radiation level during the trip from Earth to Mars does not exceed the capacity of the human body, but one should remember that the Sun is a huge unpredictable radioactive destructive mass.¶ Just one solar flare during the trip to Mars will send a stream of high-energy particles that will damage any shielding that can be created today. In fact, it will ‘roast’ any creature that is not protected by the planetary magnetic fields. In 2022, just a couple of years before the planned start of the expedition, the Sun will be at the peak of its 11-year cycle.¶ Then, on the surface of Mars, the colonists would have to find a way to deal with a reduced gravitational field of the planet. Since Mars has only a third of the earth’s gravity, this factor can be fatal in the long term perspective. All aspects of our biological structure – from heart rate to the strength of our bones – are related to gravity.¶ As soon as this force is removed, we begin to lose bone marrow and our heart and vestibular system start to malfunction. It is the reason why the astronauts do not stay on the ISS for longer than necessary. The effects of the so-called “space sickness” on Mars will be reduced compared to the microgravity of outer space, but in the long run they will likely lead to the terminal health problems.¶ And finally, there is a problem of self-sustaining life on the Red Planet. Since the supply missions to Mars will cost billions of dollars, they will be probably delayed if the colonists suddenly run out of something important, like the air, water or food.¶ Of course, each colony on Mars is planned as a self-sustaining system. However, just one serious crop failure will lead to the lack of oxygen, which will be produced by plants, and will raise the question of survival of the colonists. Perchlorate makes Mars uninhabitableBrogan 15 Apr 7, 2015 Staying Healthy on the Red Planet A chemical found in Martian soil might make it more dangerous to establish a permanent settlement there. By Jacob Brogan, Research associate at Future Tense https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Jacob%20Brogan%20is%22&oq=%22Jacob%20Brogan%20is%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1488j0j4♥Tina Mars also appeals because of the evidence of water we’ve found there, especially in the soil. The trouble is that water isn’t the only substance we’ve discovered in the dirt of Mars. In 2009, scientists responsible for the Phoenix lander reported that they had discovered a statistically significant sample of perchlorate within the soil of the “polygon-patterned northern plains of the Vastitas Borealis.” If you’re left wondering what on Earth this might mean, you’re not alone. One of the investigators would later claim that his team had to look up the substance to find out what, exactly, they’d discovered. Perchlorate is, among other things, dangerous to the human body, capable of disrupting the basic functioning of the metabolic system. It interferes with our ability to absorb iodine, which is essential to the production of thyroid hormones. While most of us understand our metabolisms only well enough to declare that our own are fast or slow, they actually work through a delicate daisy chain of chemical interactions. When something disrupts a single link in this process, as perchlorate does, the changes can reverberate throughout the body, producing drastic changes in mood, appetite, temperature regulation, sleep cycles, and more. Starting in the 1950s, perchlorate was often used medically to treat hyperthyroidism. But in the 1960s, physicians linked medically prescribed potassium perchlorate to a number of deaths by aplastic anemia and severe agranulocytosis, two blood disorders. At the time, doctors decided the drug’s benefit outweighed this relatively small risk, but it ultimately fell out of favor, replaced by other antithyroid agents. Because they rarely prescribe it, physicians have performed relatively little research on acute perchlorate dosages in the past four decades. Here on Earth, perchlorate is uncommon, but it’s also not unheard of. It’s used in some rocket propellants, partially because it’s inert at low temperatures but explosive at higher ones. Because it’s highly water-soluble, it tends to wash away quickly when it finds its way into the ground, sometimes making its way into reservoirs. In Nevada, for example, industrial contaminants have left some drinking water with perchlorate concentrations averaging 1.2 parts per billion. While this is clear cause for regulatory concern, it still falls well below the maximum allowable levels that the FDA has established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, partly because most research has been inconclusive on the environmental health effects of these chemicals, even at much higher concentrations. Perchlorate sometimes appears naturally in the soils of very dry environments, such as the Atacama Desert in South America. Researchers like Alfonso Davila, a planetary scientist affiliated with the SETI Institute, study the Atacama and similar environments because they feature conditions analogous to those that we’re likely to encounter on Mars. Perchlorate accounted for somewhere between 0.4 and 0.6 percent of the Phoenix lander sample by weight. Davila explained to me that this is an amount several factors of magnitude greater than those found anywhere here on the Earth (including Nevada), on the moon, and elsewhere. This enormous concentration might have been the product of an environmental anomaly—some quirk of polar conditions, perhaps. But subsequent analysis of both data from earlier missions and later explorations has suggested that perchlorate is widely distributed across the planet in equivalent or greater concentrations. Indeed, as Chris McKay, of NASA’s Ames Research Center, told me, it may constitute as much as 1 percent of the soil’s weight in some places. AT: terraformingTerraforming is impossible – it will take hundreds of years and we do not have the techJuarez 13 More than 100,000 want to go to Mars and not return, project says By Jennifer Juarez, CNNMexico.com, and Elizabeth Landau, CNN updated 6:06 PM EDT, Thu August 15, 2013 | Filed under: Innovations http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/tech/innovation/mars-one-applications/♥Tina Each lander that Mars One sends will be able to carry about 5,511 pounds of "useful load" to Mars, he said. After eight missions, more than 44,000 pounds of supplies and people are expected to have arrived. The capsules themselves, whose weight is not included in that number, will become part of the habitat. Food and solar panels will go in the capsules. Earth won't be sending much water or oxygen though -- those will be manufactured on Mars, Lansdorp said. Astronauts will filter Martian water from the Martian soil. "We will evaporate it and condense it back into its liquid state," he said. "From the water we can make hydrogen and oxygen, and we will use the oxygen for a breathing atmosphere inside the habitat. This will be prepared by the rovers autonomously before the humans arrive." It sounds like terraforming, a process in which the conditions of a planet are modified to make it habitable, but Lansdorp said it isn't. "We will create an atmosphere that looks like the atmosphere on Earth, so you could say that we are terraforming the habitat. But to terraform the entire planet, that's a project that will take hundreds and hundreds of years," he added. A dangerous mission In spite of the risks of space travel, the Mars One founder said he is convinced of the viability of the project. However, some space travel experts have said the risks are far too high to carry out these manned missions to Mars, a distance that humans have never traveled. Radiation is a big concern. NASA does not allow their astronauts to expose themselves to radiation levels that could increase their risk of developing cancer by more than 3%. To maintain the radiation exposure standards that NASA requires, the maximum time an astronaut can spend in space "is anywhere from about 300 days to about 360 days for the solar minimum activity. For solar maximum, in ranges anywhere from about 275 days to 500 days," said Eddie Semones, NASA spaceflight radiation officer. A round-trip journey to Mars could expose astronauts to the maximum amount of radiation allowed in a career under current NASA standards, according to a recent study by scientists at the space agency. Mars One is planning a one-way journey, which doesn't negate the problem, and being on Mars could expose astronauts to even more radiation, depending on how long they stay and what the shielding conditions are like. Radiation damages cells' DNA, which can lead to cell death or permanent changes that may result in cancer. However, "there's no convincing human evidence for excess abnormalities in offspring of radiation-exposed adults," Semones said. While orbiting the Earth, astronauts get exposed to greater concentrations of cosmic background radiation than here on Earth in addition to charged particles trapped in the upper atmosphere and from the sun, said Robert J. Reynolds, epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center. As a spacecraft moves into deep space, the people on board would be exposed to even more cosmic radiation and solar particles, which is "fairly dangerous," Reynolds said. Interestingly, according to Reynolds, astronauts' risk of dying of cancer is lower than that of the general public because they tend to be in shape, eat well, don't smoke and receive careful monitoring from doctors. Of course, none of them have been to Mars. Semones emphasized that NASA does not study the health effects of Mars colonization and that it's focusing on shorter recognition missions of the surface of Mars. "We're not looking at colonization of Mars or anything. We're not focusing our research on those kinds of questions." Can it be done? Mars One isn't the only group hoping to make history by sending people to the red planet. The Inspiration Mars Foundation wants to launch two people -- a man and a woman -- on a 501-day, round-trip journey to Mars and back in 2018 without ever touching down. 501 days in space with your spouse: Could you handle it? At this time there is no technology that can protect astronauts from an excess of space radiation. "The maximum number of days to stay with our standards is on the order of 500 days. So any mission that would exceed 500 days would not be doable," Semones said. Reynolds agreed: "At this point it's completely infeasible to try to send someone to Mars unless we can get there faster or we develop better shielding for a spacecraft." NASA is working on engines intended to cut the travel time to Mars by the 2030s, but those systems won't be ready for many years, Chris Moore, NASA's deputy director of advanced exploration systems, told CNN this year. In the meantime, Moore said engineers could try to limit travelers' exposures by designing a spacecraft in such a way that it provides more protection. But Mars One founder Lansdorp insisted his group will get people landing on Mars by 2023. "The risks of space travel in general are already very high, so radiation is really not our biggest concern," he said. If that all sounds good, you can still sign up. But remember: You can never go home again. Terraforming fails – Mars does not have a magnetic field. Colonies would be destroyed by lethal doses of solar radiationBriggs, 2013, Discovery, Josh Briggs “5 hurdles to conquer before colonizing Mars,” http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/5-hurdles-conquer-before-colonizing-mars.htm♥Tina Even though it's the closest planet to Earth for sustaining life, Mars is currently uninhabitable by humans. Yes, it has an atmosphere, wind, clouds and days are similar in length to ours at 24 hour, 37 minutes. Mars even has seasonal changes too [source: Britannica].¶ But that's essentially where the comparisons stop. By all accounts, Mars is a geologically dead planet. While Mars has plenty of volcanoes and geological evidence that there was tectonic activity at some point in its history, that's not the case anymore. There is no air pressure to hold in water and Mars suffers from the lack of a magnetic field that would shield it from harmful solar winds [source: Fox]. Any effort to process Mars into a livable planet (i.e. terraform) would have to take all these factors into account.¶ Perhaps it would be possible to jumpstart the atmosphere by turning the carbon dioxide-rich air into oxygen much the way plants on Earth clean our air. But Mars still wouldn't have a magnetic field. Without a magnetic shield for protection, extreme waves of solar radiation strip away the Martian atmosphere, thus subjecting humans to lethal doses of radiation. Evidence suggests the polar ice caps have the remnants of a magnetic shield and are safe from the extreme solar radiation [source: Fox]. If nothing else, terraforming could be limited to those regions. MoneyNo colonization- we can’t fund itRT News 2014, “NASA plans to colonize Mars,” 6/23/14 http://rt.com/usa/167944-nasa-plans-colonize-mars/♥Tina Currently, the American space agency is planning to put a human on Mars in 2035 – a plan that depends on the successful completion of a few different missions, as well as stable funding over the course of the next couple of decades. As RT reported earlier this month, a new study by the US National Research Council found that under NASA’s current budget trajectory, reaching the Red Planet would be unlikely.¶ “Absent a very fundamental change in the nation’s way of doing business, it is not realistic to believe that we can achieve the consensus goal of reaching Mars,” said Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana governor and co-chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Human Spaceflight. No col- no moneyReichhardt 14, Air & Space Magazine, “To Mars! But not the way we’re going Tony,” http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/mars-not-way-were-going-180951855/?no-ist♥Tina NASA will need more money¶ Without a significant boost in the space agency’s budget, we should forget about Mars, says the panel. Sending humans to the Red Planet will cost on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars, and even though this will be amortized over decades, the nation should be prepared to pay that cost. Americans should also understand that people will likely die carrying out such an ambitious mission.¶ Spaceflight is popular, but only up to a point¶ This wasn’t the typical committee of ex-NASA officials and aerospace engineers, repeating the same tired arguments. The panel included historians, economists (co-chair Mitch Daniels is a former head of the U.S. government budget office), and in Roger Tourangeau, one of the leading academic experts on public opinion. As a result, their analysis of public support for spaceflight goes far beyond counting Twitter followers and Facebook likes, or relying on quickie polls to show that people “like space.” Basically, Americans want a human spaceflight program, but it’s far from a priority. “At any given time, a relatively small proportion of the U.S. public pays close attention to space exploration,” the committee wrote. Furthermore, “most Americans do not favor increased spending on space exploration”—which seems a serious problem, given the need to increase NASA’s budget. But, said Daniels in a press briefing timed for the report’s release, this may not be a showstopper. If the public won’t demand more spending, neither is it likely to object if leaders invest more in space, especially if NASA can show tangible results.¶ The United States can’t go it alone¶ If NASA aims to send people to Mars, the program will have to be international, and other nations will have to contribute well above the amounts they’ve historically invested in human spaceflight. China should be included.¶ NASA needs an overhaul¶ NASA facilities that are obsolete or don’t contribute to the mission should be closed. (This, of course, requires wise management by Congress, whose political patronage sometimes keeps NASA programs alive beyond the point of usefulness.)¶ If the report’s conclusions sound blunt, they’re meant to. As Daniels told reporters, “We recognize that many of our recommendations will be seen by many as unrealistic—to which we would only observe that, absent changes along the lines we are recommending, the goal of reaching Mars in any meaningful timeframe is itself unrealistic.” Colonization impossible – it costs hundreds of billions just for the missionKing 14, JC Online, “Daniels: Mars trip a daunting challenge,” Government Public Affairs Reporter Ledyard King http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2014/06/25/mitch-daniels-mars-mission-daunting-challenge/11368473/♥Tina It will take unprecedented unity, funding and international teamwork to land astronauts on Mars within the next 30 years, the co-chairmen of an independent government panel advocating such a mission told a congressional committee Wednesday.¶ Then the two co-chairmen got a glimpse of why those goals won’t come easy:¶ • GOP lawmakers at Wednesday’s hearing bashed the Obama administration for abandoning a return-to-the-moon mission in favor of using an asteroid as a steppingstone to Mars.¶ • Democrats said Republicans have no right to complain about lack of money for the space program when they’ve pushed for budget cuts.¶ • And lawmakers from both parties raised doubts about whether potential foreign partners, notably China, can be trusted.¶ Mitch Daniels, co-chairman of the National Research Council panel that issued the 285-page report earlier this month, acknowledged the enormousness of the task.¶ “Getting humans to the surface of Mars will be a daunting challenge,” Daniels, now president of Purdue University and a former two-term Indiana governor, told members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Succeeding in this endeavor will require, we believe, a very different way of doing business than the nation has been practicing in recent decades.”¶ The other co-chairman, Jonathan Lunine, who directs Cornell University’s Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, told lawmakers that a Mars mission will cost “hundreds of billions” over the next two to three decades and may not be an easy sell to the public.¶ The National Research Council’s report concludes that exploring Mars — a concept that the committee backs — will require a plan that enjoys almost total support, full funding, and involvement by private and international partners from the get-go. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|