The Feasibility of Establishing a Colony on Mars

Through literature and film, people have expressed their urge to explore and colonize other planets. Many science fiction films, such as Star Wars, push our imagination by depicting a world where interplanetary travel is a commodity. As fun as it is to imagine our species living on other planets, reality must set in and remind us that creative works were not designed to be a goal for us to attain; for, over the years, we have also seen films retelling past events, even some of science fiction, that illustrate how fragile humans are when they exit the atmosphere. Some that come to mind are Apollo 13, First Man, The Martian, and Interstellar. Movies like these show us how limited we are when it comes to space travel, but have also, awakened our imagination and led many aerospace engineers and astrophysicists around the world to feed fuel to the ever-growing fire of a Martian colony. Unfortunately, we should restrict our ambition to merely visiting the Red Planet just as we did for the Moon. When we look at the number of factors opposing a human civilization on the Red Planet, it becomes clear that we shouldn’t attempt to achieve the infeasible act of colonizing Mars. These factors include financial issues, as well as dangerous psychological and physical effects of living on Mars; all of which will be discussed in depth throughout this article.

 

How We Get There and the Money Needed for It

Before diving into the science behind why we can’t live on Mars, we should look at the financial feasibility of colonizing Mars. Until January this year, one of the most popular players in the “Race to Mars” was the Dutch founded, semi non-profit company, known as Mars One, who planned on having the first crew of astronauts arrive to establish a permanent residence, in 2032 (Mars One). Their budget predicted 6 billion US dollars to have their first crew of only four astronauts land. They also predicted subsequent manned missions would cost 2 billion US dollars as well as other expenses to send regular shipments containing supplies for the colonizers. To put this into perspective, on average each Summer Olympic Games costs $5.2 billion US (Cost of Olympics). This budget has been heavily criticized and there is evidence suggesting that it will cost much more than the price of an Olympic Games to send people 54.6 km away and have them live there permanently. Due to the unrealistic nature of Mars One’s mission, their funding drew short earlier this year and the company has officially been declared bankrupt, lending evidence to the case against the colonization of Mars. If a company requiring such a low amount of financing cannot obtain the funds, then who can?

This brings us to NASA, a government funded agency that is a major player in the “Race to Mars.” Although the predicted budget of expenses for a mission to Mars varies, in 2018, NASA estimated that it would cost them “tens of billions” (Berger) to bring men to Mars, let alone live there, and many predict it may cost over $100 billion US. Again, to put the price into perspective, the cost of building a wall across the southern US boarder has been determined to be just over 10 billion and was not approved by Congress, more because of political reasons though. In 2015, the agency devised an unofficial plan of having human settlement on Mars that would be broken down into three phases. The first would be limited to more time spent in the ISS, which is short for, International Space Station, to provide further testing on living in space. The second is called the “Proving Ground,” which would test living and travelling in space using Earth resources, and the last, called, “Earth Independent,” would not involve resources from Earth, but would include the “harvesting of Martian resources for fuel, and building material” (Human Mission to Mars). All this would take place over many decades and would require lots of funding which the government is not prepared for, especially since there is no “need” to get to Mars like there was to get to the Moon in the sixties. Although Donald Trump’s budget for the 2020 fiscal year has increased from allotting 20.7 to 21.5 billion to NASA, only 109 million of that is aimed to be spent on future Mars activity. Before we can get to Mars, there are still significant milestones that must take place. For example, an unmanned Mars mission that returns with soil samples is vital, but costly. Just simply getting to Mars and landing on the planet should prove to be costly enough, so imagine how ridiculous the amount of money required to sufficiently fund all the various phases of the project would be.

Right now, the most affordable way of arriving to Mars appears to lie in the private sector, specifically, in SpaceX, who has engineer and entrepreneur, Elon Musk, at the helm. Musk believes that the most cost-effective way of colonizing Mars would be to recycle whatever rockets we use to get there. His goal is to establish a fueling station on the Moon so that transportation between Earth and the colony can be practical as well as affordable. Last year, he showed the world that it is possible to reuse rockets when the engine cores carrying the Falcon Heavy into space successfully landed on Earth. However, there is still much doubt in whether he will be able to repeat the process on foreign soil, where dust storms and different climates will make it much harder to land. And so, until further testing has been completed, the financial issues are still present.

 

Our Bodies Can’t Handle the Red Planet

Putting monetary constraints aside, the human body cannot physically function on Mars.

The first major issue is that Mars, unlike Earth, has no protection against radiation. In space, there are many cosmic rays made of high energy atomic particles that shoot all over the place from exploding celestial bodies. These rays can cause all sorts of health effects, such as severely impaired vision, damaged DNA, damaged nervous system, and even cancer (Kim, Gene, et al.). On Earth, we are immune to the radiation because our atmosphere absorbs the majority of the rays, additionally, Earth’s magnetic field deflects most of the radiation. Mars on the other hand, no longer has a major global magnetic field and its atmosphere is too thin to repel radiation. Furthermore, a voyage to and from Mars alone would result in a radiation exposure of 0.66 Sv which is near the maximum 2 Sv radiation some astronauts attain while on six-month trips at the ISS (Spaceflight Radiation Carc.). Since the risk of cancer can begin to rise at 0.05 Sv, it would be highly dangerous for the human body to remain on a planet with next to no radiation protection for a long period of time. Although scientists have come up with ways to partially protect against the extreme radiation, there are still many unknowns when being exposed to such high levels of radiation that we have yet to uncover (Scott).

The next issue to examine is Mars’ atmospheric composition, which is approximately 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and less than 0.4% oxygen. This is very problematic because it results in a very thin atmosphere. With a thin atmosphere, the temperature fluctuates quite a bit. “Between day and night, it can vary within 70°C” (Colonization of Mars), making it hard to set up a colony using materials resistant to both climates. Additionally, the low levels of oxygen make it so that we wouldn’t be able to breathe freely outside. This would require for every habitat to be air tight and perfectly sealed, which will be difficult to maintain since there are very powerful dust storms on Mars. Lastly, the low atmospheric pressure would cause our heads to explode and our eyes to bulge out like in 1990’s, Total Recall, where Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character dies within seconds of exposure to Martian air.

Another major problem with living on Mars is the effects of a lower force of gravity. Because Mars is smaller than Earth, its force of gravity is about 38% of what we experience on Earth. Prolonged living in such an environment would result in osteoporosis (bones become brittle), muscle atrophy (weakening muscles from lack of movement) and dangerous effects to the cardiovascular system (Marwaha). These effects will prove to be challenging to deal with on Mars, but also, if they were too return to Earth, their bodies wouldn’t survive because they would have adapted to Martian conditions. When astronauts return from the ISS after several months in space, they have difficulty walking and require aid upon landing, so that effect would be intensified by a much larger degree after living on Mars.

One of the simplest factors affecting the possibility of colonizing Mars, is the fact that Martian soil is toxic. Because many UV rays hit the ground of Mars, the large quantity of perchlorates in the soil become highly reactive. Perchlorates are very toxic and able to elevate blood pressure, cause lung lesions, and shut down the thyroid gland (Blair); all devastating effects on a living being, especially on Mars, where medical help would be very limited. The perchlorates would be unavoidable because the dust would get everywhere and would eventually come into contact with us even within the confines of our habitats.

 

What Living on Mars Really Entails

In addition to physical effects on the human body, the social and psychological issues associated with living within an isolated habitat are very dangerous for humans. As a species, we are used to living in large spaces with a plethora of things to do and places to visit. Studies have been performed in the past that have examined the effects of sharing a confined environment with people, most notably in Antarctica (Lackey). Living in encapsulated habitats on Mars entails a similar social setting as it does in Antarctica and has led many to compare the two living conditions in a psychological context. The conditions involve interacting with the same set of people for a long period of time without the ability to interact with the outside world or take a break from those around them. The idea proposed by Mars One to have people on the Red Planet for the rest of their lives just simply wouldn’t work; people would get upset, cranky and eventually end up hurting each other. This was best seen recently, in Antarctica, when a pair of Russians scientists had to end their research early because one of them had stabbed his colleague after he had spoiled the ending of the stabber’s book. Seeing that Martian living conditions would be just as restrictive if not more restrictive than those in Antarctica, it is likely that the colonists’ moral would be very low, which would inevitably lead to a miserable and unpleasant life, making the goal of having a colony on Mars next to pointless.

 

Humanity’s Future with Mars

After looking at financial, physical, and psychological factors concerning the feasibility of colonizing Mars, it is clear that our society is far from making it happen any time soon. As it stands, there are many obstacles that need to be overcome for us to even consider going to Mars. Just as it took humans years to land on the Moon, it will take us years before we land on Mars. It will be difficult to land on Mars, but it will eventually happen; unfortunately, the establishment of a civilization on Mars is likely to never happen, regardless of how much Elon Musk claims we are meant to be an interplanetary species. His goal of having a fueling station on the Moon, and a colony on Mars may never become a reality, but it is still important that we continue aspiring to “explore strange new worlds” as Captain Kirk says in the opening monologue of every Star Trek episode. We should look to the Moon landing as inspiration to revolutionize our ambition to discover what lies out there. Even though we never established a base on the Moon, lots of valuable information regarding the universe was obtained from the moon landing missions. This should give us enough of an incentive to try our best to reach our neighboring planet. Perhaps if we were to shift the goal from colonizing Mars, to simply visiting and exploring Mars, we’d be able to get there faster.

 

Works Cited

  • Berger, Eric. “NASA Budgeting Reveals Dim Hopes for Humans Going to Mars.” Ars Technica, Wired Media Group, 26 Apr. 2018, 9.22 am, arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/.
  • “Colonization of Mars.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars.
  • “Cost of the Olympic Games.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Dec. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games.

 

  • “Human Mission to Mars.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • “Spaceflight Radiation Carcinogenesis.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_radiation_carcinogenesis.

An Evaluation of Frankenstein

Frankenstein: An Example of Strong Characters and Intriguing Theme in Literature

The novel, Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, is an important piece of English literature because it gave birth to the mad scientist archetype, which would later lead to the creation of many other fictional characters who would also push the limits of what is right and wrong. Frankenstein’s success can be attributed to multiple factors, but it’s greatest achievements lie in the complexity of its characters and in its enthralling themes of creation, morality, and prejudice that are present throughout the novel. In addition, Shelley showcases her skill as a writer through the use of a clever narrative structure and an immaculate allusion to Greek mythology, allowing these two aspects to shine even more.

Throughout the novel, Shelley includes lots of characterization for the three narrators so that by the end, the reader can sympathize with each of them, as all three undergo a tragedy by the end of their journey. Victor’s character is the most fleshed out as the reader sees him go from a passionate and ambitious young man to a morally compromised mad scientist and lastly to a vengeful grief-stricken man. His journey is parallel to Prometheus’ who in Greek mythology is credited for the creation of man, but is ultimately tortured  by Zeus for returning fire to humans. In the novel, Victor is the “Modern Prometheus” because he cheats nature by creating life, consequently leading to his suffering. His suffering as a result of his good intentions are what lead the reader to sympathize with him. The creature’s character arc begins optimistically until it reaches its inevitable tragedy when Victor refuses to grant him happiness after he is rejected by Felix’s family. Shelley creates such a complex character in the creature that the reader finds himself having a hard time deciding on whether to side with him because he is alienated or whether to side against him because of how malicious he demonstrates he can be through his murders. Lastly, Shelley decides not to give Walton’s character much to do, but she does provide him with sufficient characterization. He is seen to be very ambitious and glory-driven, however he lacks true friendship. Ultimately, his character arc also ends with a tragedy because he does not pursue his quest for a new route to the Pacific and because his newly found friend dies. This tragedy helps the reader make an emotional connection to Walton as well. To properly convey the dynamics between characters and their complexities, Shelley uses a clever narrative structure where there is a story within a story. By giving each character a portion of the book to narrate, the reader understands every decision they make and feels every emotion they feel. Seeing the story from each character’s perspective thus allows the reader to sympathize with them, as they are each the victim of their own story.

Another driving force behind the success of Frankenstein, is the richness of its themes. The central theme of the novel is creation and how morality is intertwined in it. When Victor prepares to create the creature, he realizes that “a new species would bless [him] as its creator” (Shelley 80) and that they would forever be in debt to him. And so, Victor’s role as the Modern Prometheus gives him a god complex, which is uncommon for humans. The novel explores the responsibilities associated with a god and focuses on how a human would handle them. We see this when Victor initially meets his creation, and he contemplates whether or not it is his duty to provide him with happiness. We see how difficult some of these decisions can be through Victor’s perspective as he struggles with the morality behind the creation of a new species. This is where the heart of the novel is, because for the rest of Frankenstein, Victor must deal with the consequences of his arrogance as a god, which leads to a controversial character and an entertaining tale of man against nature. By including an underlying allusion to the tale of Prometheus, Shelley suggests Victor is a hero given that Prometheus is often considered a hero for returning fire to man. However, the allusion also implies that what he does is morally wrong because in the tale of Prometheus, humanity was punished in the end. The controversial ending of this tale therefore allows the reader to decide what he or she believes Victor Frankenstein should or shouldn’t have done. If a book manages to have its readers engaging in positive discourse about their own interpretation of the story, then it has succeeded as a book.

In short, Frankenstein, is an intricately constructed tale of the morality behind creation and the consequences associated with it. The well-developed characters allow the reader to enjoy the story as if they were a part of it.