Red Planet Mars Life
Lawrence M. Krauss’s “Rethinking the Dream” [Forum] rightly points out that the benefits of flying humans in space have not been commensurate with the cost, especially when human flight is compared with advanced robotic or automatic systems that can do many of the same tasks at one tenth of the cost and with no risk to humans. I think this is a result of nasa’s focus on dramatic, exciting exploration and failure to create an economical, durable infrastructure. I disagree with Krauss only where he advocates one-way missions to Mars. I believe that keeping humans alive on the planet for more than a few weeks will be extremely costly.

The Martian atmosphere is very thin and contains essentially no oxygen. The average surface temperature is about –60 degrees Celsius. Humans must always be in a pressurized enclosure, with a suitable atmosphere and adequate temperature and humidity control. Unlike Earth, Mars does not have a protective magnetic field, and the thin atmosphere provides little shielding from cosmic rays. I suspect some rather heavy shielding will have to be included in any habitats, rovers, and so on. Living off the land is, I think, absolutely ruled out on Mars, where there is no free water and what water ice there is seems to lie below the surface. To be of use, it would have to be collected, thawed and purified.

NASA has learned that an average human will require about five kilograms of food, water and oxygen each day and will produce an equal amount of waste. Of course, water can be recycled, oxygen can be extracted from CO₂ and solid waste can be treated, but all that requires power and equipment. Solar arrays on Mars must be twice the size of Earth arrays because solar radiation is weaker (the planet is farther away from the sun). And the arrays will likely require cleaning from Martian dust. For safety reasons, there must also be redundant equipment, plus tools and spare parts for repair. Solid food cannot be recycled, and growing food would require a large, totally enclosed “hothouse.”

The habitat must have air locks to enable humans and their rovers to get in and out without depressurizing the entire living environment. Surface excursions must not go so far from the habitat that participants will not be able to walk back in case their rover breaks down. Furthermore, if a sortie lasts longer than a few hours, the rover must provide food, water and toilet facilities.

Finally, there are human considerations that do not factor directly into costs but that I think make the whole idea unfeasible. Will the colonial-nauts include a doctor? Will the habitat include clinical/hospital facilities? What about recreation? What about normal family life? What happens when the colonial-nauts age and die?

Most of all, why would anyone go?
Don Peterson
Retired U.S. Air Force pilot and NASA astronaut
El Lago, Tex.

COCKTAIL PARTY CHATTER
I am deaf in one ear, and even though my hearing is much better than most, I experience the issues described in Graham P. Collins’s “Solving the Cocktail Party Problem” every day. For me, it is only when a room is very noisy and I am struggling to comprehend the conversation that I notice the process I use to solve the cocktail party problem. My technique seems to be a combination of those mentioned in the article. As in spread-spectrum signal processing, once I know what a person sounds like, I listen for the sounds he or she is making. Second, I take in the sounds and try to reconstruct the words based on the expected probability of sounds surrounding each one. Finally, I use the probability of words surrounding each one based on the context to fill in the sentence. I knit the sounds into words and the words into a sentence.

4 Comments

1. 1. artbardige 11:17 AM 7/21/11

   I read your editorial with a bittersweet taste in my mouth, sweet because it is good to see education talked about in Scientific American, but bitter because it was a rehash of failed reforms. It is abundantly clear that we need a revolution in education. You rightly make the argument that we are not producing enough quality STEM graduates let alone coming close to fulfilling our need for good STEM teachers. And the results are even more dismal when we consider the preparation of our low income students and students of color for higher education or meaningful jobs.
   Yet, it is not for want of trying. Over the past 40 years there have been numerous efforts to reform education, including a large number of DARPA-like projects sponsored by NSF and more recently by the Gates Foundation and others. And yet the profound truth is that the gold standard NAEP score in math for 12th graders remains flat lined; it has not changed in 40 years. It has not changed despite a nearly 300% increase in per student (constant dollar) expenditures over that same period.
   We clearly need new thinking! And to begin the process I want to suggest that we focus not on instruction but on learning. While you barely mention technology and effectively dismiss it as the key to this revolution, technology can now enable this new focus. I am not speaking of technology that replaces teachers; teachers remain a critical part of the learning process. Rather technology can enable most students to learn many things without direct teacher instruction, and it can enhance the ability of good and great teachers to broaden their ability to instruct.
   I believe that Scientific American and other STEM voices can play a critical role in solving this great problem by providing a forum for revolutionary educational ideas and discussions. I would like to see a monthly column on new educational ideas in your magazine as well as articles on revolutionary learning in your content. And is it not time for education to be a science like the other sciences you cover and warrant a role not only in your content but in your special issues? For if we treat education as a science perhaps we can ensure that every American will become a scientific American.
   Art Bardige
   CEO Sustainablearning
   artbardige@sustainablearning.com
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. hotblack 03:27 PM 8/12/11

   The US is no longer a vibrant young go-getter. It's now settling into crotchety late-middle age, called it good enough, and is spending what resources it has accumulated, trying to resist change, content to sit on the porch yelling at kids to get off its lawn. The new up & coming countries is where the exciting promise is. It'll be a bit til they get there, but it'll be neat to see them cruise past us... before they plateau out themselves and are surpassed by others still. Civilizations only advance til things are comfortable enough to stop.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. bucketofsquid in reply to hotblack 04:37 PM 8/12/11

   I almost never agree with you but this time your post puts it perfectly. The USA has had it's day and is now digging in to prepare to be "retired" by more dynamic nations that want their turn to shine.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Oztotl 10:49 PM 8/22/11

   There is a really disappointing "letter to the editor" in your Aug 12, 2011 issue. Former astronaut Don Peterson describes how he wouldn’t have the “right stuff” to take part in colonizing Mars. His personal scruples aside, Peterson far overstates the technical, physiological and psychological difficulties of a one-way mission to the Red Planet. The challenges of such a program would be considerably less daunting than the problems faced 45 years ago by engineers who found a way to put men on the moon. Living conditions on Mars would be undeniably primitive, but not unprecedented or something that humans have not endured before. We accept that our military or police may sacrifice their lives for the greater good. There is no greater good than moving humanity onto another planet. A Mars outpost would provide a sanctuary for the seed of mankind so a remnant will remain should something terrible happen on earth. Establishing a sister planet arrangement with Mars will give us a true mastery of space travel and help cope with the inevitable extinction humanity must eventually suffer from a massive asteroid impact.
   
   James C. McLane III
   Associate Fellow, The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
   Houston TX
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this