This article is about the defunct Mars colonization firm. For the first Soviet spacecraft for Mars, see Mars 1. For other uses, see Mars 1 (disambiguation).

Defunct organization and company that promoted Mars colonization

Mars One was a small private Dutch organization that received money from investors by claiming it would use it to land the first humans on Mars and leave them there to establish a permanent human colony.[1][2][3] From its announcement in 2012 to its bankruptcy in early 2019, it is estimated to have received tens of millions of dollars.[4] The organization was not an aerospace company and did not manufacture hardware.[5]

Mars One consisted of two entities: the not-for-profit Mars One Foundation, and the for-profit company Mars One Ventures which was the controlling stockholder of the for-profit Interplanetary Media Group that also managed the broadcasting rights. The Mars One Foundation, based in the Netherlands, managed the project. The small organization had four employees,[6] and intended to make profits by selling media (documentaries) about the personnel selection, training and colonization.[7] The first mission was estimated by its CEO Bas Lansdorp to cost about $6 billion as of the 2010s.[7][8]

The concept had been criticized by scientists, engineers, and those in the aerospace industry as glossing over logistics and medical concerns, and lacking critical concepts about hardware. The concept had been called a suicide mission by academia, the spaceflight industry, and international news.[6] On 15 January 2019, a court decision was settled to liquidate the for-profit company, bankrupting it in the process.[9][10]

Mars One's original concept included launching a robotic Mars lander and Mars orbiter as early as 2020, to be followed by a human crew of four in 2024, and one in 2026 which would not be returning to Earth. Although the announcement garnered much international publicity, the concept has been criticized by scientists, engineers, and those in the aerospace industry.[11] Mars One is noted as being very short on funding, lacking critical concepts about hardware, life support, electrical power supply, and has been criticized as glossing over logistics, medical concerns, and protection against space radiation.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] The concept has been called a suicide mission in academia, spaceflight, and international news.[6][17][12]

By February 2015, two conceptual studies were done by contractors.[21] Despite the criticism and lack of funding, about 2,700 people applied to become one of the 24 finalists "to settle Mars".[7]

In December 2013, Mars One announced its concept of a robotic precursor mission. Originally scheduled for launch in 2020, the roadmap called for the launch to occur in 2022.[22] If funded, the robotic lander would be "built by Lockheed Martin based on the design used for NASA's Phoenix and InSight landers, as well as a communications orbiter built by Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd."[23] In February 2015, Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite Technology confirmed that contracts on the initial study phase begun in late 2013 had run out and additional contracts had not been received for further progress on the robotic missions. Plans were set in motion to raise the US$200 million needed to support the initial robotic mission,[21][23] but some critics[who?] did not find the economic plans to raise money from private investors and exclusive broadcasting rights to be sufficient to support the initial, or follow-on, mission(s).

Mars One selected a second-round pool of astronaut candidates in 2013. Mars One received interest from over 200,000 applicants for the first round. However, as candidate Joseph Roche asserted, the number of initial applicants who completed the application process was only 2,761,[24] which Mars One later confirmed via YouTube video.[25] The second-round pool was whittled down to 705 candidates (418 men and 287 women) in the beginning of May 2014. 353 were removed due to personal considerations.[26] After the medical physical requirement, 660 candidates remained.[25] The third round of candidate selection concluded in 2015. The remaining 100 candidates, known as The Mars 100, consisted of 50 men and 50 women who were slated to move forward to the next round, where 40 individuals would have been chosen through an interview process.[27]

On 30 June 2014, it was made public that Mars One was seeking financial investment through a bidding process to send company experiments to Mars. The experiment slots would go to the highest bidder and would include company-related ads, and the opportunity to have the company name on the robotic lander that was proposed to carry the experiments to Mars in 2018.[28]

In a video posted on 19 March 2015, Lansdorp said that because of delays in funding the robotic precursor mission, the first crew would not set down on Mars until 2027.[29][12] Following the criticism reported in The Space Review in October 2016 about funding mechanisms,[30] Mars One created Mars One Ventures.[31] In late 2016 Mars One had changed its first crewed mission date to 2032.[32]

In December 2013, mission concept studies for a robotic Mars lander were contracted with Lockheed Martin for a demonstration mission concept. It would be based on the design of the successful 2007 NASA Phoenix lander,[23][33] and provide proof of concept for a subset of the key technologies for a later human settlement on Mars.[34] Upon submission of Lockheed Martin's Proposal Information Package,[33] Mars One released a Request for Proposals[35] for the various payloads on the lander. The total payload mass of 44kg was divided among the seven payloads as follows:[35]

A robotic rover was proposed to be launched to Mars in 2022, in order to scout a landing site for the 2027 lander and a site for the Mars One colony. At the same time, a communication satellite would be launched, enabling continuous communication with the future landed assets. For 2024, six cargo missions were proposed, in close succession, consisting of two living units, two life-support units, and two supply units; a spacecraft transporting four astronauts was proposed to meet a transit vehicle bound for Mars. For 2025, the landing module transporting four astronauts was proposed to land on Mars. They envisioned the crew to be met by the rover, and taken to the Mars One colony.[36]

Notes:^a The initial concept timeline slipped 2 times, with a 2-year delay each time.[44]^b Work on robotic missions was suspended pending further review and future contract direction in February 2015.[21]^c SpaceX had no contracts with MarsOne and the project did not appear on their launch manifest.[45]

The Mars One team consisted of Chief Executive Officer and co-founder Bas Lansdorp, Chief Technical Officer and co-founder Arnold Wielders, Chief Medical Officer Norbert Kraft, Mission Concept Artist Bryan Versteeg, Senior Marketing Strategist KC Frank, and Chief Information Officer Tom Van Braeckel.[46]

Mars One's team of advisers consisted of over 30 industry and scientific experts,[47] including Mason Peck, Peter Smith, James R. Kass, K.R. Sridhara Murthi, Esther Dyson, and Robert Zubrin.

Mars One was not an aerospace company and would not have manufactured hardware.[5] Lansdorp had assumed all major components would be available in the aerospace market,[48] and had said Mars One had identified at least one potential supplier for each component of the mission.[49][50]

SpaceX mentioned in 2014 that they had been contacted by Mars One, but that accommodating Mars One requirements would require some additional work and that such action was not a part of the current focus of SpaceX.[51] SpaceX had no contracts with Mars One.[52][53] The first Mars One cargo mission to Mars was proposed to launch by 2022, followed by a crewed mission in 2024,[54] but without funds, hardware, and without a launcher it did not happen.[55]

A hypothetical crewed interplanetary spacecraft, for which there were no concept design studies, was to have been assembled in low Earth orbit and comprise two propellant modules: a Transit Living Module (discarded just before arrival at Mars) and a lander (see "Human Lander" below).[48][56] In 2012, Mars One speculated that the Transit Living Module might potentially be designed and built by Thales Alenia Space.[57]

A concept study was produced by Lockheed Martin for a demonstration lander based on the 2008 Phoenix lander.[42][23][33]

In December 2013 Mars One awarded a contract to Surrey Satellite Technology for a study of the satellite technology required to provide 24/7 communication between Earth and the Mars base.[58][59] Mars One proposed at least two satellites, one in areostationary orbit above Mars and a second at the Earth Sun L4 or L5 point to relay the signal when Mars blocks the areosynchronous satellite from line of sight to Earth.[59] It is possible that a third satellite would be required to relay the signal on the rare occasions when the Sun blocks the first relay satellite from line of sight with Earth.[59]

An early notional crewed lander was shown in concept art[when?] as a 5-meter (16ft)-diameter variant of SpaceX Red Dragon, but SpaceX declined to collaborate with Mars One.[45]

The crewed Mars rover was to have been unpressurized and claimed to be designed to be capable of supporting travel distances of 80km (50 miles).[60] One mentioned supplier for the rover in 2012 was Astrobotic Technology.[57][non-primary source needed]

On 12 March 2013, Paragon Space Development Corporation was contracted to develop concepts for life support and the Mars Surface Exploration Spacesuit System, and it included the pressure suit and the Portable Life Support System (PLSS) that could have permitted survival outside the habitat. The suggested supplier of the suits was ILC Dover.[61] The study was stated to be finished late summer 2013; Mars One released the results of this (ECLSS portion only) study to the public in June 2015,[62][63][64] but did not fund its research and development.

In 2013, Mars One signed a contract with Paragon Space Development Corporation, for a preliminary life support system concept study based on the International Space Station.[65] The idea was criticized because that system, as modern as it is, requires significant maintenance and supplies not available while on Mars.[66][67]

The application was available from 22 April 2013 to 31 August 2013.[68][69] This first application consisted of applicant's general information, a motivational letter, a rsum and a video. More than 200,000 people expressed interest. By 9 September 2013, 4,227 applicants[70] had paid their registration fee and submitted public videos in which they made their case for going to Mars.[71] The application fee varies from US$5 to US$75 (the amount depending on the relative wealth of the applicant's country).[72]

Distribution of the 1,058 applicants selected for Round 2 according to their academic degree[73]

Other (37%)

The applicants selected in this round were declared on 30 December 2013. A total of 1,058 applicants from 107 countries were selected.[23] The gender split was 586 males (55.4%) and 472 females (44.6%). Among the people that were selected to move on to round two, 159 have a master's degree, 347 have bachelor's degrees and 29 have Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degrees. The majority of the applicants are under 36 and well educated.[74][75]

Medically cleared candidates were interviewed, and 50 men and 50 women from the total pool of 660 from around the world were selected to move on to the third round of the astronaut selection process:[76][77]

Applicants were remotely interviewed and recorded by Mars One over a relatively short Skype/SparkHire call regarding Martian-related orbital, temp/pressure, geological and historical parameters and the specific elements of the Mars One one-way mission.[24][78][79] Joseph Roche, one of the finalists, has accused the selection process of being based on a point system that is primarily dependent on how much money each individual generated or gave to the Mars One organization, despite many of the round three selectees having not spent any money in the process, apart from the application fee, which varied as a function of each applicant's country GDP.[24][78][79] Lansdorp acknowledges a "gamification" point system but denies that selection is based on money earned.[79] Roche also stated that if paid for interviews, they are asked to donate 75% of the payment to Mars One.[24][79] This was confirmed by Lansdorp.[24][79]

The company had intended that the regional selection may be broadcast as a reality television show documenting group challenges, but no deal was reached with TV producers. The audience was to select one winner per region, and the experts could select additional participants, if needed, to continue to the international level.[68] Of the 100 candidates, 40 individuals were to be chosen through an interview process.[80] Round 3 would take place after enough funding is secured for an "Earth-based simulation outpost."[80]

The remaining 40 candidates would be spending nine days in an isolation unit. The candidates are observed closely to examine how they act in situations of prolonged close contact with one another. It takes a specific team dynamic to be able to handle this, and the goal of this selection round is to find those that are best suited for this challenge. After the isolation round, 30 candidates would be chosen to undergo in a Mars Settler Suitability Interview.[81]

The Mars Settler Suitability Interview would have measured suitability for long-duration space missions and Mars settlement, and would last approximately 4 hours. 24 candidates would be selected after the interview and would be offered full-time employment with Mars One.[81]

From the previous selection series, six groups of four were to become full-time employees of the Mars One, after which they were to train for the mission. An MIT team noted that since the company is not developing the technology needed, it is unclear what the astronauts would be training for.[17][20] Mars One has stated that the teams selected were going to undergo a battery of training, ranging from psycho-social skills to engineering and scientific observation.[82]

Mars One funding came from astronaut application fees, donations, undisclosed private investment, intellectual property (IP) rights, and mostly, the potential sale of future broadcasting rights.[7][72] Over three-quarters of the funds reportedly went to concept design studies. Mars One states that "income from donations and merchandise have not been used to pay salaries". To date, no financial records have been released for public viewing.[83] Mars One initially estimated a one-way trip, excluding the cost of maintaining four astronauts on Mars until they die, at US$6 billion.[84] Lansdorp has declined questions regarding the cost estimate.[85]

Mars One's investment of revenues[86]

Concept design studies (78.3%)

Travel expenses (11.6%)

Legal expenses (3.3%)

Website maintenance (2.4%)

Communications (2.3%)

Office and other (2.1%)

A proposed global reality-TV show was intended to provide funds to finance the expedition, however, no such television show emerged and no contracts were signed. The astronaut selection process (with some public participation) was to be televised and continue on through the first years of living on Mars.[87]

Discussions between Endemol started in June 2014,[88][failed verification] producers of the Big Brother series, and Mars One ended with Endemol subsidiary Darlow Smithson Productions issuing a statement in February 2015 that they "were unable to reach agreement on the details of the contract" and that the company was "no longer involved in the project."[89] Lansdorp updated plans to no longer include live broadcasts, but instead would rely on documentary-style short films produced by the company Stateless Media.[90][91]

On 31 August 2012, the company announced that funding from its first sponsors were received,[84] and that the funds were used mostly to pay for two conceptual design studies performed by aerospace suppliers Lockheed Martin (lander) and Surrey Satellite Systems (orbiter).[84]

On 3 March 2014 Mars One announced a working agreement with Uwingu, stating that the program would use Uwingu's map of Mars in all of their missions.[92][93]

Total (from 113 countries): $928,888

Since the official announcement of their conversion to a Stichting foundation, Mars One began accepting donations through their website. As of 4 July 2016, Mars One had received $928,888 in donations and merchandise sales.[94] The 2016 donation update adds the Indiegogo campaign ($313,744) to the private donation and merchandise total.

On 10 December 2013, Mars One set up a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo to help fund a 2018 demonstration robotic mission that was not built. The alleged 2018 mission would have included a lander and a communications satellite to prove technologies in addition to launch and landing. The campaign goal was to raise US$400,000 by 25 January 2014. Since the ending date was drawing near, they decided to extend the ending date to 9 February 2014. By the end of the campaign, they had received $313,744. Indiegogo received 9% ($28,237).[95]

Trading of the shares of Mars One Ventures AG, listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, was suspended on 5 February 2019 for non-compliance with the FSE regulations when the number of shares was increased in 2017.[96] In February 2019, it was reported that Mars One had declared bankruptcy in a Swiss court on 15 January 2019, and was permanently dissolved as a company.[97][98] The total debt is approximately 1 million.[96]

Mars One received a variety of criticism, mostly relating to medical,[99] technical and financial feasibility. There were also unverified claims that Mars One was a scam designed to take as much money as possible from donors, including reality show contestants.[100][101] Many criticized the project's US$6 billion budget as being too low to successfully transport humans to Mars, to the point of being delusional.[20][102] A similar project study by NASA estimated the cost of such a feat at US$100 billion, although that included transporting the astronauts back to Earth. Objections had also been raised regarding the reality TV project associated with the expedition. Given the transient nature of most reality TV ventures, many believed that as viewership declined, funding could significantly decrease, thereby harming the entire expedition. Further, contestants reported that they were ranked based on their donations and funds raised.[100][103]

John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University, criticized the program, saying it appeared to be a scam[102] and not "a credible proposition".[104]

Chris Welch, director of the Masters Programs at the International Space University, said "Even ignoring the potential mismatch between the project income and its costs and questions about its longer-term viability, the Mars One proposal does not demonstrate a sufficiently deep understanding of the problems to give real confidence that the project would be able to meet its very ambitious schedule."[105]

Gerard 't Hooft, theoretical physicist and ambassador[106] to Mars One, has stated that he thought both their proposed schedule and budget were off by a factor of ten.[24][107] He said he still supported the project's overall goals.[107]

A space logistics analysis conducted by PhD candidates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that the most optimistic of scenarios would require 15 Falcon Heavy launches that would cost approximately $4.5 billion.[17] They concluded that the reliability of Environmental Control and Life Support systems (ECLS), the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) would have to be improved. Additionally, they determined that if the costs of launch were also lowered dramatically, together this would help to reduce the mass and cost of Mars settlement architecture.[17] The environmental system would result in failure to be able to support human life in 68 days if fire safety standards on over-oxygenation were followed, due to excessive use of nitrogen supplies that would not then be able to be used to compensate leakage of air out of the habitat, leading to a resultant loss in pressurization, ending with pressures too low to support human life.[17] Lansdorp replied that although he has not read all the research, supplier Lockheed Martin said that the technologies were viable.[108]

Another serious concern uncovered in the research conducted by MIT was replacement parts. The PhD candidates estimated the need for spare parts in a Mars colony based on the failure rates of parts on the ISS. They determined that a resupply mission every two years would be necessary unless a large space in the initial launch were to be reserved for extra materials. Lansdorp commented on this saying, "They are correct. The major challenge of Mars One is keeping everything up and running. We don't believe what we have designed is the best solution. It's a good solution."[108]

In March 2015, one of the Mars One finalists, Joseph Roche,[109] stated to media outlets that he believed the mission to be a scam. Roche holds doctorate degrees in physics and astrophysics, and shared many of his concerns and criticisms of the mission. These claims include that the organization lied about the number of applicants, stating that 200,000 individuals applied versus Roche's claim of 2,761, and that many of the applicants had paid to be put on the list. Furthermore, Roche claimed that Mars One was asking finalists for donations from any money earned from guest appearances (which would amount to a minimal portion of the estimated $6 billion required for the mission). Finally, despite being one of 100 finalists, Roche himself never spoke to any Mars One employee or representative in person, and instead of psychological or psychometric testing as is normal for astronaut candidates (especially for a lengthy, one-way mission), his interview process consisted of a 10-minute Skype conversation.[100][110]

In April 2015, Mars One's CEO Bas Lansdorp admitted that their 12-year plan for landing humans on Mars by 2027 was mostly fiction.[12]

Robert Zubrin, advocate for crewed Martian exploration, said "I don't think the business plan closes it. We're going to go to Mars, we need a billion dollars, and we're going to make up the revenue with advertising and media rights and so on. You might be able to make up some of the money that way, but I don't think that anyone who is interested in making money is going to invest on that basis invest in this really risky proposition, and if you're lucky you'll break even? That doesn't fly."[111] Despite his criticisms, Zubrin became an adviser to Mars One on 10 October 2013.[112]

Canadian former astronaut Julie Payette said during the opening speech for an International Civil Aviation Organization conference that she did not think Mars One "is sending anybody anywhere".[79]

In January 2014, German former astronaut Ulrich Walter strongly criticized the project for ethical reasons. Speaking with Tagesspiegel, he estimated the probability of reaching Mars alive at only 30%, and that of surviving there more than three months at less than 20%. He said, "They don't care what happens to those people in space... If my tax money were used for such a mission, I would organize a protest."[113]

Space tourist Richard Garriott stated in response to Mars One, "Many have interesting viable starting plans. Few raise the money to be able to pull it off."[114]

Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin said in an interview that he wants to see humans on Mars by 2035, but he does not think Mars One will be the first to achieve it.[115]

Wired magazine gave it a plausibility score of 2 out of 10 as part of their 2012 Most Audacious Private Space Exploration Plans.[116]

The project lacked current funding as well as sources for future funding.[117] The organization had no spacecraft or rocket in development or any contracts in place with companies that could provide a spacecraft or rocket. While plans point to SpaceX for both resources, the company had no contracts with Mars One in an industry that typically plans contracts decades in advance.[45]

More:

Mars One - Wikipedia

Proposed concepts for human settlements on Mars

Colonization or settlement of Mars is the theoretical human migration and long-term human establishment of Mars. The prospect has garnered interest from public space agencies and private corporations and has been extensively explored in science fiction writing, film, and art.

Organizations have proposed plans for a human mission to Mars, the first step towards any colonization effort, but no person has set foot on the planet, and there have been no return missions. However, landers and rovers have successfully explored the planetary surface and delivered information about conditions on the ground.

Mars' orbit is close to Earth's orbit and the asteroid belt. While Mars' day and general composition are similar to Earth, the planet is hostile to life. Mars has an unbreathable atmosphere, thin enough that its temperature on average fluctuates between 70 and 0C (94 and 32F), yet thick enough to cause planet-wide dust storms. The barren landscape on Mars is covered by fine dust and intense ionizing radiation. Mars has in-situ resources, such as underground water, Martian soil, and ore, which could be leveraged by colonists. Opportunities to generate electricity via wind, solar, and nuclear power using resources on Mars are poor.

Justifications and motivations for colonizing Mars include curiosity, the potential for humans to provide more in-depth observational research than uncrewed rovers, an economic interest in its resources, and the possibility that the settlement of other planets could decrease the likelihood of human extinction. Difficulties and hazards include radiation exposure during a trip to Mars and on its surface, toxic soil, low gravity, the isolation that accompanies Mars' distance from Earth, a lack of water, and cold temperatures.

Commitments to researching permanent settlement have been made by public space agenciesNASA, ESA, Roscosmos, ISRO, the CNSA, among othersand private organizationsSpaceX, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing.

Since the 20th century, there have been several proposed human missions to Mars both by government agencies and private companies.[vague]

Most of the human mission concepts as currently conceived by national governmental space programs would not be direct precursors to colonization. Programs such as those being tentatively planned by NASA, Roscosmos, and ESA are intended solely as exploration missions, with the establishment of a permanent base possible but not yet the main goal.[citation needed]

Colonization requires the establishment of permanent habitats that have the potential for self-expansion and self-sustenance. Two early proposals for building habitats on Mars are the Mars Direct and the Semi-Direct concepts, advocated by Robert Zubrin, an advocate of the colonization of Mars.[1]

At the February 2017 World Government Summit, the United Arab Emirates announced a plan to establish a settlement on Mars by 2117, led by the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre.[2][3]

SpaceX has proposed the development of Mars transportation infrastructure in order to facilitate the eventual colonization of Mars. The mission architecture includes fully reusable launch vehicles, human-rated spacecraft, on-orbit propellant tankers, rapid-turnaround launch/landing mounts, and local production of rocket fuel on Mars via in situ resource utilization (ISRU). SpaceX's aspirational goal as of 2017[update] was to land their cargo Starships on Mars by 2024 and the first 2 crewed starships by 2026.[4][5][needs update]

The surface gravity of Mars is just 38% that of Earth. Although microgravity is known to cause health problems such as muscle loss and bone demineralization,[7][8] it is not known if Martian gravity would have a similar effect. The Mars Gravity Biosatellite was a proposed project designed to learn more about what effect Mars' lower surface gravity would have on humans, but it was cancelled due to a lack of funding.[9]

Mars has a surface area that is 28.4% of Earth's, which is only slightly less than the amount of dry land on Earth (which is 29.2% of Earth's surface). Mars has half the radius of Earth and only one-tenth the mass. This means that it has a smaller volume (15%) and lower average density than Earth.

Due to the lack of a magnetosphere, solar particle events and cosmic rays can easily reach the Martian surface.[10][11][12]

Atmospheric pressure on Mars is far below the Armstrong limit at which people can survive without pressure suits. Since terraforming cannot be expected as a near-term solution, habitable structures on Mars would need to be constructed with pressure vessels similar to spacecraft, capable of containing a pressure between 30 and 100kPa. The atmosphere is also toxic as most of it consists of carbon dioxide (95%carbon dioxide, 3%nitrogen, 1.6%argon, and traces totaling less than 0.4% of other gases, including oxygen).

This thin atmosphere does not filter out ultraviolet sunlight, which causes instability in the molecular bonds between atoms. For example, ammonia (NH3) is not stable in the Martian atmosphere and breaks down after a few hours.[13]Also due to the thinness of the atmosphere, the temperature difference between day and night is much larger than on Earth, typically around 70C (125F).[14] However, the day/night temperature variation is much lower during dust storms when very little light gets through to the surface even during the day, and instead warms the middle atmosphere.[15]

Water on Mars is scarce, with rovers Spirit and Opportunity finding less than there is in Earth's driest desert.[16][17][18]

The climate is much colder than Earth, with mean surface temperatures between 186 and 268K (87 and 5C; 125 and 23F) (depending on the season and latitude).[19][20] The lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 184 K (89.2C, 128.6F) in Antarctica.

Because Mars is about 52% farther from the Sun, the amount of solar energy entering its upper atmosphere per unit area (the solar constant) is only around 43.3% of what reaches the Earth's upper atmosphere.[21] However, due to the much thinner atmosphere, a higher fraction of the solar energy reaches the surface as radiation.[22][23] The maximum solar irradiance on Mars is about 590 W/m2 compared to about 1000 W/m2 at the Earth's surface; optimal conditions on the Martian equator can be compared to those on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic in June.[24] Mars' orbit is more eccentric than Earth's, increasing temperature and solar constant variations over the course of the Martian year.[citation needed] Mars has no rain and virtually no clouds,[citation needed] so although cold, it is permanently sunny (apart from during dust storms). This means solar panels can always operate at maximum efficiency on dust-free days.

Global dust storms are common throughout the year and can cover the entire planet for weeks, blocking sunlight from reaching the surface.[25][26] This has been observed to cause temperature drops of 4C (7F) for several months after the storm.[27] In contrast, the only comparable events on Earth are infrequent large volcanic eruptions such as the Krakatoa event which threw large amounts of ash into the atmosphere in 1883, causing a global temperature drop of around 1C (2F).These dust storms would affect electricity production from solar panels for long periods, and interfere with communications with Earth.[15]

Mars has an axial tilt of 25.19, similar to Earth's 23.44. As a result, Mars has seasons much like Earth, though on average they last nearly twice as long because the Martian year is about 1.88Earth years. Mars' temperature regime is more similar to Earth's than all other planets in the solar system. While generally colder than Earth, Mars can have Earth-like temperatures in some areas and at certain times.

The Martian soil is toxic due to relatively high concentrations of chlorine and associated compounds, such as perchlorates, which are hazardous to all known forms of life,[28][29] even though some halotolerant microorganisms might be able to cope with enhanced perchlorate concentrations by drawing on physiological adaptations similar to those observed in the yeast Debaryomyces hansenii exposed in lab experiments to increasing NaClO4 concentrations.[30]

Plants and animals cannot survive the ambient conditions on the surface of Mars.[31] However, some extremophile organisms that survive in hostile conditions on Earth have endured periods of exposure to environments that approximate some of the conditions found on Mars.

The Martian day (or sol) is very close in duration to Earth's. A solar day on Mars is 24 hours, 39 minutes and 35.244 seconds.[32]

Conditions on the surface of Mars are closer to the conditions on Earth in terms of temperature and sunlight than on any other planet or moon, except for the cloud tops of Venus.[33] However, the surface is not hospitable to humans or most known life forms due to the radiation, greatly reduced air pressure, and an atmosphere with only 0.16%oxygen.

In 2012, it was reported that some lichen and cyanobacteria survived and showed remarkable adaptation capacity for photosynthesis after 34days in simulated Martian conditions in the Mars Simulation Laboratory (MSL) maintained by the German Aerospace Center (DLR).[34][35][36] Some scientists think that cyanobacteria could play a role in the development of self-sustainable crewed outposts on Mars.[37] They propose that cyanobacteria could be used directly for various applications, including the production of food, fuel and oxygen, but also indirectly: products from their culture could support the growth of other organisms, opening the way to a wide range of life-support biological processes based on Martian resources.[37]

Humans have explored parts of Earth that match some conditions on Mars. Based on NASA rover data, temperatures on Mars (at low latitudes) are similar to those in Antarctica.[38] The atmospheric pressure at the highest altitudes reached by piloted balloon ascents (35km (114,000 feet) in 1961,[39] 38km in 2012) is similar to that on the surface of Mars. However, the pilots were not exposed to the extremely low pressure, as it would have killed them, but seated in a pressurized capsule.[40]

Human survival on Mars would require living in artificial Mars habitats with complex life-support systems. One key aspect of this would be water processing systems. Being made mainly of water, a human being would die in a matter of days without it. Even a 58% decrease in total body water causes fatigue and dizziness and a 10% decrease physical and mental impairment (See Dehydration). A person in the UK uses 70140litres of water per day on average.[41] Through experience and training, astronauts on the ISS have shown it is possible to use far less, and that around 70% of what is used can be recycled using the ISS water recovery systems. (For instance, half of all water is used during showers.[42]) Similar systems would be needed on Mars but would need to be much more efficient, since regular robotic deliveries of water to Mars would be prohibitively expensive (the ISS is supplied with water four times per year). Potential access to on-site water (frozen or otherwise) via drilling has been investigated by NASA.[43]

Mars presents a hostile environment for human habitation. Different technologies have been developed to assist long-term space exploration and may be adapted for habitation on Mars. The existing record for the longest consecutive space flight is 438days by cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov,[44] and the most accrued time in space is 878days by Gennady Padalka.[45] The longest time spent outside the protection of the Earth's Van Allen radiation belt is about 12days for the Apollo 17 moon landing. This is minor in comparison to the 1100-day journey to Mars and back[46] envisioned by NASA for possibly as early as the year 2028. Scientists have also hypothesized that many different biological functions can be negatively affected by the environment of Mars colonies. Due to higher levels of radiation, there are a multitude of physical side-effects that must be mitigated.[47] In addition, Martian soil contains high levels of toxins which are hazardous to human health.

The difference in gravity may negatively affect human health by weakening bones and muscles. There is also risk of osteoporosis and cardiovascular problems. Current rotations on the International Space Station put astronauts in zero gravity for six months, a comparable length of time to a one-way trip to Mars. This gives researchers the ability to better understand the physical state that astronauts going to Mars would arrive in. Once on Mars, surface gravity is only 38% of that on Earth. Microgravity affects the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and neurovestibular (central nervous) systems. The cardiovascular effects are complex. On Earth, blood within the body stays 70% below the heart, but in microgravity this is not the case due to nothing pulling the blood down. This can have several negative effects. Once entering into microgravity, the blood pressure in the lower body and legs is significantly reduced.[48] This causes legs to become weak through loss of muscle and bone mass. Astronauts show signs of a puffy face and chicken legs syndrome. After the first day of reentry back to earth, blood samples showed a 17% loss of blood plasma, which contributed to a decline of erythropoietin secretion.[49][50] On the skeletal system which is important to support our body's posture, long space flight and exposure to microgravity cause demineralization and atrophy of muscles. During re-acclimation, astronauts were observed to have a myriad of symptoms including cold sweats, nausea, vomiting and motion sickness.[51] Returning astronauts also felt disoriented. Journeys to and from Mars being six months is the average time spent at the ISS. Once on Mars with its lesser surface gravity (38% percent of Earth's), these health effects would be a serious concern.[52] Upon return to Earth, recovery from bone loss and atrophy is a long process and the effects of microgravity may never fully reverse.[citation needed]

Dangerous amounts of radiation reach Mars' surface despite it being much further from the Sun compared to Earth. Mars has lost its inner dynamo giving it a weaker global magnetosphere than Earth does. Combined with a thin atmosphere, this permits a significant amount of ionizing radiation to reach the Martian surface. There are two main types of radiation risks to traveling outside the protection of Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere: galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particles (SEP). Earth's magnetosphere protects from charged particles from the Sun, and the atmosphere protects against uncharged and highly energetic GCRs. There are ways to mitigate solar radiation, but without much of an atmosphere, the only solution to the GCR flux is heavy shielding amounting to roughly 15 centimeters of steel, 1 meter of rock, or 3 meters of water, limiting human colonists to living underground most of the time.[53]

The Mars Odyssey spacecraft carries an instrument, the Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE), to measure the radiation. MARIE found that radiation levels in orbit above Mars are 2.5 times higher than at the International Space Station. The average daily dose was about 220Gy (22mrad)equivalent to 0.08Gy per year.[54] A three-year exposure to such levels would exceed the safety limits currently adopted by NASA,[55] and the risk of developing cancer due to radiation exposure after a Mars mission could be two times greater than what scientists previously thought.[56][57] Occasional solar proton events (SPEs) produce much higher doses, as observed in September 2017, when NASA reported radiation levels on the surface of Mars were temporarily doubled, and were associated with an aurora 25-times brighter than any observed earlier, due to a massive, and unexpected, solar storm.[58] Building living quarters underground (possibly in Martian lava tubes) would significantly lower the colonists' exposure to radiation.

Much remains to be learned about space radiation. In 2003, NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center opened a facility, the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, at Brookhaven National Laboratory, that employs particle accelerators to simulate space radiation. The facility studies its effects on living organisms, as well as experimenting with shielding techniques.[62] Initially, there was some evidence that this kind of low level, chronic radiation is not quite as dangerous as once thought; and that radiation hormesis occurs.[63] However, results from a 2006 study indicated that protons from cosmic radiation may cause twice as much serious damage to DNA as previously estimated, exposing astronauts to greater risk of cancer and other diseases.[64] As a result of the higher radiation in the Martian environment, the summary report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee released in 2009 reported that "Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources."[64] NASA is exploring a variety of alternative techniques and technologies such as deflector shields of plasma to protect astronauts and spacecraft from radiation.[64]

Due to the communication delays, new protocols need to be developed in order to assess crew members' psychological health. Researchers have developed a Martian simulation called HI-SEAS (Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation) that places scientists in a simulated Martian laboratory to study the psychological effects of isolation, repetitive tasks, and living in close-quarters with other scientists for up to a year at a time. Computer programs are being developed to assist crews with personal and interpersonal issues in absence of direct communication with professionals on Earth.[65] Current suggestions for Mars exploration and colonization are to select individuals who have passed psychological screenings. Psychosocial sessions for the return home are also suggested in order to reorient people to society.

Various works of fiction put forward the idea of terraforming Mars to allow a wide variety of life forms, including humans, to survive unaided on Mars' surface. Some ideas of possible technologies that may be able to contribute to the terraforming of Mars have been conjectured, but none would be able to bring the entire planet into the Earth-like habitat pictured in science fiction.[66]

To be self-sustaining, a colony would have to be large enough to provide all the necessary living services. These include[67]

As the number of individuals grows, both activities and objects can be shared between them. Growth also will offset the risks of collapse of the society, caused by sudden deaths, accidents, infertility or inbreeding. But this may not prevent mortal combat between different groups of individuals, or the loss of efficiency due to inappropriate social organization.

By mathematical modelling of the time spent by people on these issues and by keeping things simple, Salotti concludes that the minimum number for a colony on Mars is 110.[67] This is close to other studies of the genetic problems involved in the longer journey to Proxima Centauri b (6,000+ years).[68]

Mars requires less energy per unit mass (delta V) to reach from Earth than any planet except Venus. Using a Hohmann transfer orbit, a trip to Mars requires approximately nine months in space.[69] Modified transfer trajectories that cut the travel time down to four to seven months in space are possible with incrementally higher amounts of energy and fuel compared to a Hohmann transfer orbit, and are in standard use for robotic Mars missions. Shortening the travel time below about six months requires higher delta-v and an increasing amount of fuel, and is difficult with chemical rockets. It could be feasible with advanced spacecraft propulsion technologies, some of which have already been tested to varying levels, such as Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket,[70] and nuclear rockets. In the former case, a trip time of forty days could be attainable,[71] and in the latter, a trip time down to about two weeks.[1] In 2016, a University of California, Santa Barbara scientist said they could further reduce travel time for a small robotic probe to Mars down to "as little as 72 hours" with the use of a laser propelled sail (directed photonic propulsion) system instead of the fuel-based rocket propulsion system.[72][73]

During the journey the astronauts would be subject to radiation, which would require a means to protect them. Cosmic radiation and solar wind cause DNA damage, which increases the risk of cancer significantly. The effect of long-term travel in interplanetary space is unknown, but scientists estimate an added risk of between 1% and 19% (one estimate is 3.4%) for males to die of cancer because of the radiation during the journey to Mars and back to Earth. For females the probability is higher due to generally larger glandular tissues.[74]

Mars has a surface gravity 0.38 times that of Earth, and the density of its atmosphere is about 0.6% of that on Earth.[75] The relatively strong gravity and the presence of aerodynamic effects make it difficult to land heavy, crewed spacecraft with thrusters only, as was done with the Apollo Moon landings, yet the atmosphere is too thin for aerodynamic effects to be of much help in aerobraking and landing a large vehicle. Landing piloted missions on Mars would require braking and landing systems different from anything used to land crewed spacecraft on the Moon or robotic missions on Mars.[76]

If one assumes carbon nanotube construction material will be available with a strength of 130GPa (19,000,000psi) then a space elevator could be built to land people and material on Mars.[77]A space elevator on Phobos (a Martian moon) has also been proposed.[78]

Phobos is synchronously orbiting Mars, where the same face stays facing the planet at ~6,028 km above the Martian surface. A space elevator could extend down from Phobos to Mars 6,000 km, about 28 kilometers from the surface, and just out of the atmosphere of Mars. A similar space elevator cable could extend out 6,000 km the opposite direction that would counterbalance Phobos. In total the space elevator would extend out over 12,000 km which would be below Areostationary orbit of Mars (17,032 km). A rocket launch would still be needed to get the rocket and cargo to the beginning of the space elevator 28 km above the surface. The surface of Mars is rotating at 0.25 km/s at the equator and the bottom of the space elevator would be rotating around Mars at 0.77 km/s, so only 0.52 km/s of Delta-v would be needed to get to the space elevator. Phobos orbits at 2.15 km/s and the outer most part of the space elevator would rotate around Mars at 3.52 km/s.[79]

Colonization of Mars would require a wide variety of equipmentboth equipment to directly provide services to humans and production equipment used to produce food, propellant, water, energy and breathable oxygenin order to support human colonization efforts. Required equipment will include:[1]

In order to function at all the colony would need the basic utilities to support human civilization. These would need to be designed to handle the harsh Martian environment and would either have to be serviceable while wearing an EVA suit or housed inside a human habitable environment. For example, if electricity generation systems rely on solar power, large energy storage facilities will also be needed to cover the periods when dust storms block out the sun, and automatic dust removal systems may be needed to avoid human exposure to conditions on the surface.[27] If the colony is to scale beyond a few people, systems will also need to maximise use of local resources to reduce the need for resupply from Earth, for example by recycling water and oxygen and being adapted to be able to use any water found on Mars, whatever form it is in.

Communications with Earth are relatively straightforward during the half-sol when Earth is above the Martian horizon. NASA and ESA included communications relay equipment in several of the Mars orbiters, so Mars already has communications satellites. While these will eventually wear out, additional orbiters with communication relay capability are likely to be launched before any colonization expeditions are mounted.

The one-way communication delay due to the speed of light ranges from about 3 minutes at closest approach (approximated by perihelion of Mars minus aphelion of Earth) to 22minutes at the largest possible superior conjunction (approximated by aphelion of Mars plus aphelion of Earth). Real-time communication, such as telephone conversations or Internet Relay Chat, between Earth and Mars would be highly impractical due to the long time lags involved. NASA has found that direct communication can be blocked for about two weeks every synodic period, around the time of superior conjunction when the Sun is directly between Mars and Earth,[82] although the actual duration of the communications blackout varies from mission to mission depending on various factorssuch as the amount of link margin designed into the communications system, and the minimum data rate that is acceptable from a mission standpoint. In reality most missions at Mars have had communications blackout periods of the order of a month.[83]

A satellite at the L4 or L5 EarthSun Lagrangian point could serve as a relay during this period to solve the problem; even a constellation of communications satellites would be a minor expense in the context of a full colonization program. However, the size and power of the equipment needed for these distances make the L4 and L5 locations unrealistic for relay stations, and the inherent stability of these regions, although beneficial in terms of station-keeping, also attracts dust and asteroids, which could pose a risk.[84] Despite that concern, the STEREO probes passed through the L4 and L5 regions without damage in late 2009.

Recent work by the University of Strathclyde's Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, has suggested an alternative relay architecture based on highly non-Keplerian orbits. These are a special kind of orbit produced when continuous low-thrust propulsion, such as that produced from an ion engine or solar sail, modifies the natural trajectory of a spacecraft. Such an orbit would enable continuous communications during solar conjunction by allowing a relay spacecraft to "hover" above Mars, out of the orbital plane of the two planets.[85] Such a relay avoids the problems of satellites stationed at either L4 or L5 by being significantly closer to the surface of Mars while still maintaining continuous communication between the two planets.

The path to a human colony could be prepared by robotic systems such as the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity and Perseverance. These systems could help locate resources, such as ground water or ice, that would help a colony grow and thrive. The lifetimes of these systems would be years and even decades, and as recent developments in commercial spaceflight have shown, it may be that these systems will involve private as well as government ownership. These robotic systems also have a reduced cost compared with early crewed operations, and have less political risk.

Wired systems might lay the groundwork for early crewed landings and bases, by producing various consumables including fuel, oxidizers, water, and construction materials. Establishing power, communications, shelter, heating, and manufacturing basics can begin with robotic systems, if only as a prelude to crewed operations.

Mars Surveyor 2001 Lander MIP (Mars ISPP Precursor) was to demonstrate manufacture of oxygen from the atmosphere of Mars,[86] and test solar cell technologies and methods of mitigating the effect of Martian dust on the power systems.[87][needs update]

Before any people are transported to Mars on the notional 2020s Mars transportation infrastructure envisioned by SpaceX, a number of robotic cargo missions would be undertaken first in order to transport the requisite equipment, habitats and supplies.[88]Equipment that would be necessary would include "machines to produce fertilizer, methane and oxygen from Mars' atmospheric nitrogen and carbon dioxide and the planet's subsurface water ice" as well as construction materials to build transparent domes for initial agricultural areas.[89]

As with early colonies in the New World, economics would be a crucial aspect to a colony's success. The reduced gravity well of Mars and its position in the Solar System may facilitate MarsEarth trade and may provide an economic rationale for continued settlement of the planet. Given its size and resources, this might eventually be a place to grow food and produce equipment to mine the asteroid belt.

Some early Mars colonies might specialize in developing local resources for Martian consumption, such as water and/or ice. Local resources can also be used in infrastructure construction.[90] One source of Martian ore currently known to be available is metallic iron in the form of nickeliron meteorites. Iron in this form is more easily extracted than from the iron oxides that cover the planet.

Another main inter-Martian trade good during early colonization could be manure.[91] Assuming that life doesn't exist on Mars, the soil is going to be very poor for growing plants, so manure and other fertilizers will be valued highly in any Martian civilization until the planet changes enough chemically to support growing vegetation on its own.

Solar power is a candidate for power for a Martian colony. Solar insolation (the amount of solar radiation that reaches Mars) is about 42% of that on Earth, since Mars is about 52% farther from the Sun and insolation falls off as the square of distance. But the thin atmosphere would allow almost all of that energy to reach the surface as compared to Earth, where the atmosphere absorbs roughly a quarter of the solar radiation. Sunlight on the surface of Mars would be much like a moderately cloudy day on Earth.[92]

Space colonization on Mars can roughly be said to be possible when the necessary methods of space colonization become cheap enough (such as space access by cheaper launch systems) to meet the cumulative funds that have been gathered for the purpose.

Although there are no immediate prospects for the large amounts of money required for any space colonization to be available given traditional launch costs,[93][full citation needed] there is some prospect of a radical reduction to launch costs in the 2020s, which would consequently lessen the cost of any efforts in that direction. With a published price of US$62 million per launch of up to 22,800kg (50,300lb) payload to low Earth orbit or 4,020kg (8,860lb) to Mars,[94] SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets are already the "cheapest in the industry".[95] SpaceX's reusable plans include Falcon Heavy and future methane-based launch vehicles including the Starship. If SpaceX is successful in developing the reusable technology, it would be expected to "have a major impact on the cost of access to space", and change the increasingly competitive market in space launch services.[96]

Alternative funding approaches might include the creation of inducement prizes. For example, the 2004 President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy suggested that an inducement prize contest should be established, perhaps by government, for the achievement of space colonization. One example provided was offering a prize to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to Earth.[97]

Since Mars is much closer to the asteroid belt than Earth is, it would take less Delta-v to get to the Asteroid belt and return minerals to Mars. One hypothesis is that the origin of the Moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos) are actually Asteroid captures from the Asteroid belt.[98] 16 Psyche in the main belt could have over $10,000 Quadrillion Dollars worth of minerals. NASA is planning a mission for October 10, 2023 for the Psyche orbiter to launch and get to the asteroid by August 2029 to study.[99] 511 Davida could have $27 quadrillion Dollars worth of minerals and resources.[100] Using the moon Phobos to launch spacecraft is energetically favorable and a useful location from which to dispatch missions to main belt asteroids.[101] Mining the asteroid belt from Mars and its moons could help in the colonization of Mars.[102][103][104]

Caves would naturally provide a degree of insulation from Martian hazards for humans on the planet.[105] These hazards include radiation, impactor events, and the wide range in temperatures on the surface.[105]

Mars Odyssey found what appear to be natural caves near the volcano Arsia Mons. It has been speculated that settlers could benefit from the shelter that these or similar structures could provide from radiation and micrometeoroids. Geothermal energy is also suspected in the equatorial regions.[106]

A team of researchers which presented at Geological Society of America Connects 2022 identified some 139 caves worth exploring as potential shelters.[105] Each was within 60 miles of a location ideal for use as a landing site and had been imaged in high-resolution by HiRISE.[105]

Several possible Martian lava tube skylights have been located on the flanks of Arsia Mons. Earth based examples indicate that some should have lengthy passages offering complete protection from radiation and be relatively easy to seal using on-site materials, especially in small subsections.[107]

Hellas Planitia is the lowest lying plain below the Martian geodetic datum. The atmospheric pressure is relatively higher in this place when compared to the rest of Mars.

Robotic spacecraft to Mars are required to be sterilized, to have at most 300,000 spores on the exterior of the craftand more thoroughly sterilized if they contact "special regions" containing water,[108][109] otherwise there is a risk of contaminating not only the life-detection experiments but possibly the planet itself.

It is impossible to sterilize human missions to this level, as humans are host to typically a hundred trillion microorganisms of thousands of species of the human microbiome, and these cannot be removed while preserving the life of the human. Containment seems the only option, but it is a major challenge in the event of a hard landing (i.e. crash).[110] There have been several planetary workshops on this issue, but with no final guidelines for a way forward yet.[111] Human explorers would also be vulnerable to back contamination to Earth if they become carriers of microorganisms should Mars have life.[112]

It is unforeseen how the first human landing on Mars will change the current policies regarding the exploration of space and occupancy of celestial bodies. In the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty, it was determined that no country may take claim to space or its inhabitants. Since the planet Mars offers a challenging environment and dangerous obstacles for humans to overcome, the laws and culture on the planet will most likely be very different from those on Earth.[113] With Elon Musk announcing his plans for travel to Mars, it is uncertain how the dynamic of a private company possibly being the first to put a human on Mars will play out on a national and global scale.[114][115] NASA had to deal with several cuts in funding. During the presidency of Barack Obama, the objective for NASA to reach Mars was pushed to the background.[116] In 2017, president Donald Trump promised to return humans to the Moon and eventually Mars,[117] effectively taking action by increasing NASA budget with $1.1 billion,[118] and mostly focus on the development of the new Space Launch System.[119][120]

Space colonization in general has been discussed as continuation of imperialism and colonialism,[121] especially regarding Mars colonial decision making and reasons for colonial labor[122] and land exploitation have been questioned with postcolonial critique. Seeing the need for inclusive[123] and democratic participation and implementation of any space and Mars exploration, infrastructure, or colonialization, many have called for dramatic sociological reforms and guarantees to prevent racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice.[124]

The narrative of space exploration as a "New Frontier" has been criticized as unreflected continuation of settler colonialism and manifest destiny, continuing the narrative of colonial exploration as fundamental to the assumed human nature.[125][126][127]

The predominant perspective of territorial colonization in space has been called surfacism, especially comparing advocacy for colonization of Mars opposed to Venus.[128][129]

One possible ethical challenge that space travelers might face is that of pregnancy during the trip. According to NASA's policies, it is forbidden for members of the crew to engage in sex in space. NASA wants its crew members to treat each other like coworkers would in a professional environment. A pregnant member on a spacecraft is dangerous to all those aboard. The pregnant woman and child would need additional nutrition from the rations aboard, as well as special treatment and care. The pregnancy would impinge on the pregnant crew member's duties and abilities. It is still not fully known how the environment in a spacecraft would affect the development of a child aboard. It is known however that a fetus would be more susceptible to solar radiation in space, which would likely have a negative effect on its cells and genetics.[131] During a long trip to Mars, it is likely that members of craft may engage in sex due to their stressful and isolated environment.[132]

Mars colonization is advocated by several non-governmental groups for a range of reasons and with varied proposals. One of the oldest groups is the Mars Society who promote a NASA program to accomplish human exploration of Mars and have set up Mars analog research stations in Canada and the United States. Mars to Stay advocates recycling emergency return vehicles into permanent settlements as soon as initial explorers determine permanent habitation is possible.

Elon Musk founded SpaceX with the long-term goal of developing the technologies that will enable a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.[114][133] Richard Branson, in his lifetime, is "determined to be a part of starting a population on Mars. I think it is absolutely realistic. It will happen... I think over the next 20 years," [from 2012] "we will take literally hundreds of thousands of people to space and that will give us the financial resources to do even bigger things".[134]

Author Robert Zubrin has been a major advocate for Mars exploration and colonization for many years. He is a member of the Mars society and has authored several fiction and nonfiction books about the subject. In 1996 he wrote The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must. He continues to advocate for Mars and space exploration with his most recent book being The Case for Space: How the Revolution in Spaceflight Opens Up a Future of Limitless Possibility.

In June 2013, Buzz Aldrin, American engineer and former astronaut, and the second person to walk on the Moon, wrote an opinion, published in The New York Times, supporting a human mission to Mars and viewing the Moon "not as a destination but more a point of departure, one that places humankind on a trajectory to homestead Mars and become a two-planet species".[135] In August 2015, Aldrin, in association with the Florida Institute of Technology, presented a "master plan", for NASA consideration, for astronauts, with a "tour of duty of ten years", to colonize Mars before the year 2040.[136]

A few instances in fiction provide detailed descriptions of Mars colonization. They include:

See the rest here:

Colonization of Mars - Wikipedia

BREVARD COUNTY, Fla. Elton John might have said it best in his iconic song"Rocket Man""Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids."

More than 50 years after we sent humans to the moon the closest celestial body to Earth the plan is still to head to Mars, something many astronauts who have flown in space thought we would have alreadyaccomplished.

"I just assumed by the time I got to be old enough to go into the space program, you know we'd be living on Mars or I'd be working on Mars just as a scientist," Mae Jemison, thefirst African American woman in space,told university students at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in December 2019.

But despite the fact humankind has been unable to send anyone to another place in the universe besides the moon, there are still many with the hopes and expectation that we will become a multi-planetary species in the near future, starting with our red next-door neighbor.

Billionaire entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and aspiring young astronauts like Alyssa Carson, a sophomore studying astrobiology at Florida Tech, hope to one day live on Mars.

"Eventually the sun will run out of fuel to burn and conditions on Earth are going to be very different from our normal regular life now," Carson told Florida Today, part of the USA TODAY Network. "It's not necessarily saying Mars is the savior here but Mars is that first step in getting people a bit more accustomed to even thinking about living on other planets and being able to colonize someplace else."

Even Musk's aerospace company, SpaceX, was founded with the "ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets," according to its website.

But how feasible is that?Do we want to settle on a planet where we can't even breathe?

According to NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, we have the technological capability to go to Mars. The problem is money, or lack thereof.

Under Space Policy Directive 1, President Donald Trump tasked NASA with sending the next man and first woman to the moon by 2024 and then eventually heading on to Mars. But this isn't the first time a president has said we're going back to the moon or we're finally sending humans to the Red Planet.

After John F. Kennedy made his declaration that we would "put a man on the moon," several other presidents have tried to walk in his footsteps. But unlike Kennedy, none have come close to succeeding.

On the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 in 1989, President George H.W.Bush said we would return to the moon and go on to Mars, but in the end, the priceprovedtoo high.

His sonPresident George W. Bush echoed the same goal.

Under the Constellation program, the plan was to return to the moon by 2020 and then head to Mars, but the project was ultimately scrapped after a series of delays and increasingly high costs.

President Barack Obama also hoped to go to Mars. Instead of proposing returning to the moon, however, Obama said we should send astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 before moving on to Mars. Congressional Republicans rejected the idea, andnothing came to fruition.

NASA Administrator discusses crewed missions to Mars

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discusses NASA's ability to send humans to Mars

Rachael Joy, Florida Today

Then cameTrump's turn.

After heading back to the moon in the next four years under the Artemis program, the next big milestone would be a trip to Mars.

But again, the problem boils down to spending what's necessary to send astronauts there, Bridenstine said.

"The question isn't whether or not we're technologically capable of doing it, because we are. The question is whether or not we have the political will to do it,"hetold reporters at Kennedy Space Center in July for NASA's Mars Perseverance rover launch.

The Apollo program, Bridenstine pointed out, was driven by the need to beat the Soviet Union to the moon, which is why Congress appropriated vast sums of money to NASA. Today, that's no longer the case.

With no Cold War to encourage federal spending on the program, NASA instead is looking to international partners to help pay for any trip to Mars.

"Today we don't have thatlarge power competition that we had back then, but what we do have is we have international partners, we have commercial partners, we have technological advances that are so far beyond what we had in the 1960s," Bridenstine said. "So the answer is yes, we can do it. The question is: Will we receive the budgetto do it right now?"

It is unclear how much support the incoming Biden administrationis going to give the Artemis program.

Money isalso anissue for SpaceX's Mars plans.

As a private company, SpaceX can't rely solely on taxpayer dollars to send humans there. Instead, the aerospace company is looking for other revenue streams to help pay for a Mars mission, such as its Starlink internet constellation.

Aside from providing internet connection to people living in remote areas around the world, Starlink will also help fund SpaceX's goal of having people live on Mars or at least, that's the plan.

But first, Starlink has to be successful.

Not everyone believes sending people to live on Mars is the right move, however.

Bill Nye, CEO for the Planetary Society and famously known as "Bill Nye the Science Guy" for his TV show that aired in the '90s, is one of those who doesn't believe in setting up camp on Mars.

"I would love to go to space, you guys.But this idea of living on another world where we can't be outside just doesn't sound that appealing," Nye told reporters in 2019 before the launch of the Light Sail 2 project he and other Planetary Society members had worked on.

"You think you want to go to Venus?We'd be vaporized in a second, way less than a second," Nye said. "And then on Mars, there's nothing to breathe. There's nothing to breathe, people. It's not just there's nothing to eat, there's nothing to breathe. So, you know if you live in a dome and you go outside, you're going to put on a spacesuit and you're in another dome, like my good friend Sandy the squirrel," referencing the character from the children's TV show"SpongeBob SquarePants."

And as of now, that's really the only option for humans to live on Mars a dome. It would essentially be like how actor Matt Damon' character lived in the sci-fi film "The Martian."

Even the author of "The Martian," on which the sci-fi film is based, doesn't believe we're close to having a human settlement on Mars.

"Mars is horribly inhospitable," Andy Weir told Florida Today via email. "Though it's an awesome idea living on Mars it would be far easier to colonize Earth's ocean floor. There won't be a significant settlement on Mars until there's an economic reason for a city to exist there. Like Antarctica,the only people there are researchers because there's no reason to be there otherwise."

So like Nye, Weir isn't inclined live on Mars.

Bill Nye doesn't think humans should live on Mars

Bill Nye, CEO of the Planetary Society, talks to FLORIDA TODAY reporters Antonia Jaramillo and Rachael Joy about the idea of humans living on Mars.

Staff, FLORIDA TODAY

"Nope! I write about brave people, but I'm not one of them," Weir said."I like Earth and plan to stay."

Others argue there's another way to live on Mars that doesn't include living in a dome. The only problem is the logistics ofchanging the Martian landscape into one that can support human life.

Called "terraforming," this essentially involves transforming Mars into a more Earth-like habitat. It's what Musk has proposed doing and what astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson believes would be best if humans were to live on Mars.

Elon Musk has a plan. Hes thinking of putting satellites in orbit that have big reflectors that focus sunlight that would otherwise miss the planet. Focus it down on the planet and just add more energy to the planet, heating it up, and if you do it right, you might be able to set sort of a chain reaction in place," deGrasse Tyson said in his podcast, "StarTalk."

"If everything is frozen and it gets warmer, youll evaporate more carbon dioxide, and thatll help trap more heat, and then thatll make it hotter to evaporate even more carbon dioxide," he said. "You get all of that out of the system and into the atmosphere. Then now its warm enough, now youre still mostly greenhouse gases, you still need oxygen to breathe. So now you put microorganisms that eat the CO2 and they release oxygen.

But terraforming Mars isn't going to happen anytime soon. Not only is the technology not available to do so, but the question also becomes, "How long would that take?"

Thats the big problem. Is it a thousand years, is it a million years? Or can you speed it up with some fast-acting microbes? This remains to be established, deGrasse Tyson said. But Im telling you that if were going to be a two-planet species, Im thinking you have to terraform Mars for that to happen.

Yet not everybody agrees with that tactic, especially because that would change the whole geology of Mars.

"Ive never been someone that has been a fan of terra-transforming a planet to make it more Earth-like. I think that the excitement of going to a different planet would be utilizing the in-situ resources that are there," NASA astronaut Christina Koch told deGrasse Tyson on his podcast.

"So, I would see something like a sustainable Mars establishment, to me, would always require some type of resupply, and even if thats just to make it livable and habitable in terms of what humans think of as habitable and livable, I think is the important thing. But using the in-situ resources as well, she said.

In other words, living in that dome-like structure.

Florida Tech professor and plant biochemist Andrew Palmer also believes using in-situ resources to live on Mars is the best plan.

He, along with other researchers at the universityare collaborating on how future Marssettlers can use the resources, namely the soil on Mars to grow their own food.

"So the whole premise of this project, it all falls under something that's called in-situ resource utilization, which is a simple way of just saying using what's already there. So what we want to do is establish how little do you need to bring from Earth in order to be self-sufficient," Palmer told Florida Today."Mars is about six months away. If something goes wrong on Mars and you're unable to get a rocket to Mars to rescue people, they need to have their own food."

By studying various simulated Martian soils, Palmer and his colleagues hope to determine what elseis neededto help grow crops on Mars, especially since the Martian soil may not be able to host plant life.

Florida Tech to find right Mars soil to grow plants on the red planet

Dr. Andrew Palmer , fellow professors and his grad students are working on growing plants in simulated Mars soil for sustainability on Mars.

Malcolm Denemark, FLORIDA TODAY

"IfI go take a sample of soil on Florida Tech campus and then I went out beachside and I took a soil sample there, those are not going to be the same, and the same is true on Mars," Palmer said.

That's problematic for future Mars settlers. What if they get to Mars and all of a sudden they can't grow anything there?

To avoid that, Palmer suggests sending a robotic greenhouse in advance.

"In our mind, one way to do this would be you land robots there six months in advance, and you inflate a tent and you start working on the soil, all remotely, and colonists get there and the soil is ready to grow," Palmer said.

When discussing what crops would be best to grow on Mars and what other nutrients settlers would need, Palmer recommends crops like potatoes, corn, radishes andkale. As for protein, Palmer says, insects are the way to go.

"Trying to grow a cow on Mars, that's a huge amount of resource investment,but growing insects, it's a very cheap investment, relatively speaking," Palmer said.

The other option could be to grow synthetic meats.

Besides just the different eating habits and living arrangements humans would have to get accustomed to if they lived on Mars, life would be very different from Earth, perhaps more environmentally friendly, becausenearly everything would have to be recycled.

But that might not be all that enticing to future colonists.

"In a Martian colony, (the settlers) willhave never not had water that was made fromprevious urine, andtheir entire world will be completely recycled and reused," Palmer said.

But even with a Mars establishment, others don't believe Mars should be the final destination or a "colony" at all.

"I think going to Mars is fineit's not a final place to go. I mean, you know, it's like just going to the moon but it's a little further out," the late Apollo 15 astronaut Al Worden told Florida Today in November 2019.

"When the sun burns out, Mars is going to go too, along with the Earth," Worden said. "We'd be better off solving all the problems we've got here (on Earth) than colonizing Mars. What we need is an Earth-like planet in another solar system somewhere."

But if humans haven't even been able to head back to the moon since 1972, the odds of trying to head to a planet in another solar system isnothingmore thanscience fiction at this point.

Apollo 15 astronaut Al Worden doesn't believe in colonizing Mars

At Florida Tech, Apollo 15 astronaut Al Worden explained why he doesn't believe in colonizing Mars & where we could eventually live (Alpha Centauri)

Rachael Joy, Florida Today

Technological challengesaside, will humans even live long enough to travel and settle on another planet?

"That's my greatest concern," Worden said. "We're not very good to each other here, and we don't seem to care about the things that will sustain this place to live in for a long time. I think we're doing more damage to ourselves and the planet that it may be of such an extent that we don't have to wait till the sun burns outwe're going to do it ourselves."

He's not the only one who thinks so.

In a July 2019 Pew Research Center study, 63% of Americans said NASA's top priorities should be using space to monitor key parts of Earths climate system. Meanwhile, only 13% believe sending astronauts to the moon should be a top priority. That figure jumps to a mere 18% for a crewed mission to Mars.

Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Postin 2019stating NASA should focus its resources on saving our planet instead of heading to other celestial bodies.

"The public is right about this. Climate change not Russia, much less China is todays existential threat. Data from NASA satellites show that future generations here on Earth will suffer from food and water shortages, increased disease and conflict over diminished resources," Garver said.

Instead of focusing on sending humans to the moon or Mars, Garver said, NASA should create a Climate Corps"in which scientists and engineers spend two years in local communities understanding the unique challenges they face, training local populations and connecting them with the data and science needed to support smart, local decision-making."

"Apollos legacy should not be more meaningless new goals and arbitrary deadlines," Garver said. "Lets not repeat the past. Lets try to save our future. Besides, humanitys intrinsic need to explore is driven by our need to survive."

The coronavirus pandemicleads toanother important question about interplanetary travel:What if we got stuck with another pandemic, only this time while humans were in space?

It's hard enough to live on a planet where you can't breathe, let alone have a highly contagious virus spreading like wildfire.

A key thing we have come to understand from COVID-19 is those with weaker immune systems have a harder time recovering. For the future explorers venturing to live on Mars, they might all end up having weak immune systems.

A study published last yearby NASA scientists revealed astronauts who have endured long space voyages such as the shuttle missions and International Space Station flightswere more vulnerable to diseasessuch as herpes, chickenpox and shingles.

The cause? Pretty much what youd expect from any potentially treacherous space voyage: stress.

So far, 47 out of 89 (53%) astronauts from short-duration space shuttle flights, and 14 out of 23 (61%) from long-duration ISS spaceflight missions shed at least one or more herpes viruses in their saliva or urine samples, the study states.

When astronauts venture out into space, they are faced with several extraterrestrial hazards, including cosmic radiation, microgravity and gravitational forces like acceleration and deceleration.

But those aren't the only stress factors they're exposed to. Throughout an astronaut's space mission, they are forced to endure social separation, confinement, sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm disruption and increased anxiety.

All this exposure contributes to dysregulation in the astronauts immune and endocrine systems.

So what does this mean for potentially longer space exploration missions and the humans embarking on those quests?

Although NASA believes there is no clinical risk to astronauts during orbital spaceflight, there is concern that during deep-space exploration missions there may be clinical risks related to viral shedding, lead study author Satish Mehta at Johnson Space Center told Florida Today via email.

The girl who wants to go to Mars

Alyssa Carson, 18 year old FIT student, has known she wanted to be an astronaut from a very young age and has been working towards that goal since childhood.

Malcolm Denemark, FLORIDA TODAY

Ultimately, the information gleaned from these space studies will shape the way we prepare for and design exploration-class missions, beyond the moon and Mars, where reactivation of latent viruses could result in increased risk for wide-ranging adverse medical events, according to the study.

Aside from the physical ramifications that living in space or other planets like Mars would cause on the human body, there's also a psychological toll that will affect those living far from Earth and their loved ones.

See the rest here:

Is colonizing Mars even a good idea? You can't breathe, after all

Proposed concepts

The idea of sending humans to Mars has been the subject of aerospace engineering and scientific studies since the late 1940s as part of the broader exploration of Mars. Some have also considered exploring the Martian moons of Phobos and Deimos.[1] Long-term proposals have included sending settlers and terraforming the planet. Proposals for human missions to Mars came from e.g. NASA, Russia, Boeing, and SpaceX. As of 2022, only robotic landers and rovers have been on Mars. The farthest humans have been beyond Earth is the Moon.

Conceptual proposals for missions that would involve human explorers started in the early 1950s, with planned missions typically being stated as taking place between 10 and 30 years from the time they are drafted.[2] The list of crewed Mars mission plans shows the various mission proposals that have been put forth by multiple organizations and space agencies in this field of space exploration. The plans for these crews have variedfrom scientific expeditions, in which a small group (between two and eight astronauts) would visit Mars for a period of a few weeks or more, to a continuous presence (e.g. through research stations, colonization, or other continuous habitation).[citation needed] By 2020, virtual visits to Mars, using haptic technologies, had also been proposed.[3]

Meanwhile, the unmanned exploration of Mars has been a goal of national space programs for decades, and was first achieved in 1965 with the Mariner 4 flyby. Human missions to Mars have been part of science fiction since the 1880s, and more broadly, in fiction, Mars is a frequent target of exploration and settlement in books, graphic novels, and films. The concept of a Martian as something living on Mars is part of the fiction.

The energy needed for transfer between planetary orbits, or delta-v, is lowest at intervals fixed by the synodic period. For EarthMars trips, the period is every 26 months (2 years, 2 months), so missions are typically planned to coincide with one of these launch periods. Due to the eccentricity of Mars's orbit, the energy needed in the low-energy periods varies on roughly a 15-year cycle[4] with the easiest periods needing only half the energy of the peaks.[5] In the 20th century, a minimum existed in the 1969 and 1971 launch periods and another low in 1986 and 1988, then the cycle repeated.[4] The next low-energy launch period occurs in 2033.[6]

Several types of mission plans have been proposed, including opposition class and conjunction class,[5] or the Crocco flyby.[7] The lowest energy transfer to Mars is a Hohmann transfer orbit, which would involve a roughly 9-month travel time from Earth to Mars, about 500 days (16mo) at Mars to wait for the transfer window to Earth, and a travel time of about 9 months to return to Earth.[8][9] This would be a 34-month trip.

Shorter Mars mission plans have round-trip flight times of 400 to 450 days,[10] or under 15 months, but would require significantly higher energy. A fast Mars mission of 245 days (8.0 months) round trip could be possible with on-orbit staging.[11] In 2014, ballistic capture was proposed, which may reduce fuel cost and provide more flexible launch windows compared to the Hohmann.[12]

In the Crocco grand tour, a crewed spacecraft would get a flyby of Mars and Venus in under a year in space.[13] Some flyby mission architectures can also be extended to include a style of Mars landing with a flyby excursion lander spacecraft.[14] Proposed by R. Titus in 1966, it involved a short-stay lander-ascent vehicle that would separate from a "parent" Earth-Mars transfer craft prior to its flyby of Mars. The Ascent-Descent lander would arrive sooner and either go into orbit around Mars or land, and, depending on the design, offer perhaps 1030 days before it needed to launch itself back to the main transfer vehicle.[14] (See also Mars flyby.)

In the 1980s, it was suggested that aerobraking at Mars could reduce the mass required for a human Mars mission lifting off from Earth by as much as half.[15] As a result, Mars missions have designed interplanetary spacecraft and landers capable of aerobraking.[15]

A number of unmanned spacecraft have landed on the surface of Mars, while some, such as the Schiaparelli EDM (2016), have failed what is considered a difficult landing. The Beagle2 failed in 2003. Among the successes:

When an expedition reaches Mars, braking is required to enter orbit. Two options are available: rockets or aerocapture. Aerocapture at Mars for human missions was studied in the 20th century.[16] In a review of 93 Mars studies, 24 used aerocapture for Mars or Earth return.[16] One of the considerations for using aerocapture on crewed missions is a limit on the maximum force experienced by the astronauts. The current scientific consensus is that 5 g, or five times Earth gravity, is the maximum allowable deceleration.[16]

Conducting a safe landing requires knowledge of the properties of the atmosphere, first observed by Mariner 4, and a survey of the planet to identify suitable landing sites. Major global surveys were conducted by Mariner 9 and Viking 1 and two orbiters, which supported the Viking landers. Later orbiters, such as Mars Global Surveyor, 2001 Mars Odyssey, Mars Express, and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, have mapped Mars in higher resolution with improved instruments. These later surveys have identified the probable locations of water, a critical resource.[17]

A primary limiting factor for sending humans to Mars is funding. In 2010, the estimated cost was roughly US$500 billion, though the actual costs are likely to be more.[18] Starting in the late 1950s, the early phase of space exploration was conducted as much to make a political statement as to make observations of the solar system. However, this proved to be both wasteful and unsustainable, and the current climate is one of international cooperation, with large projects such as the International Space Station and the proposed Lunar Gateway being built and launched by multiple countries.[citation needed]

Critics argue that the immediate benefits of establishing a human presence on Mars are outweighed by the immense cost, and that funds could be better redirected towards other programs, such as robotic exploration. Proponents of human space exploration contend that the symbolism of establishing a presence in space may garner public interest to join the cause and spark global cooperation. There are also claims that a long-term investment in space travel is necessary for humanity's survival.[18]

One factor reducing the funding needed to place a human presence on Mars may be space tourism. As the space tourism market grows and technological developments are made, the cost of sending humans to other planets will likely decrease accordingly. A similar concept can be examined in the history of personal computers: when computers were used only for scientific research, with minor use in big industry, they were big, rare, heavy, and costly. When the potential market increased and they started to become common in many homes (in Western and developed countries) for the purpose of entertainment such as computer games, and booking travel/leisure tickets, the computing power of home devices skyrocketed and prices plummeted.[19]

Several key physical challenges exist for human missions to Mars:[23]

Some of these issues were estimated statistically in the HUMEX study.[36]Ehlmann and others have reviewed political and economic concerns, as well as technological and biological feasibility aspects.[37] While fuel for roundtrip travel could be a challenge, methane and oxygen can be produced using Martian H2O (preferably as water ice instead of liquid water) and atmospheric CO2 with mature technology.[38]

Robotic spacecraft to Mars are currently required to be sterilized. The allowable limit is 300,000 spores on the exterior of general craft, with stricter requirements forspacecraft bound for "special regions" containing water.[39][40] Otherwise there is a risk of contaminating not only the life-detection experiments but possibly the planet itself.[41]

Sterilizing human missions to this level is impossible, as humans are host to typically a hundred trillion (1014) microorganisms of thousands of species of the human microbiota, and these cannot be removed. Containment seems the only option, but it is a major challenge in the event of a hard landing (i.e. crash).[42] There have been several planetary workshops on this issue, but with no final guidelines for a way forward yet.[43] Human explorers would also be vulnerable to back contamination to Earth if they become carriers of microorganisms.[44]

Over the past seven decades, a wide variety of mission architectures have been proposed or studied for human spaceflights to Mars. These have included chemical, nuclear, and electric propulsion, as well as a wide variety of landing, living, and return methodologies.

A number of nations and organizations have long-term intentions to send humans to Mars.

Significant technological hurdles need to be overcome for human spaceflight to Mars.

Entry into the thin and shallow Martian atmosphere will pose significant difficulties with re-entry; compared to Earth with much denser atmosphere, any spacecraft will descend very rapidly to the surface and must be slowed down.[53] A heat shield has to be utilized.[54] NASA is carrying out research on retropropulsive deceleration technologies to develop new approaches to Mars atmospheric entry. A key problem with propulsive techniques is handling the fluid flow problems and attitude control of the descent vehicle during the supersonic retropropulsion phase of the entry and deceleration.[55]

A return mission to Mars will need to land a rocket to carry crew off the surface. Launch requirements mean that this rocket would be significantly smaller than an Earth-to-orbit rocket. Mars-to-orbit launch can also be achieved in single stage. Despite this, landing an ascent rocket on Mars will be difficult. Re-entry for a large rocket will be difficult.[citation needed]

In 2014, NASA proposed the Mars Ecopoiesis Test Bed.[56]

One of the medical supplies that might be needed is a considerable mass of intravenous fluid, which is mainly water, but contains other substances so it can be added directly to the human blood stream. If it could be created on the spot from existing water, this would reduce mass requirements. A prototype for this capability was tested on the International Space Station in 2010.[57]

A person who is inactive for an extended period of time loses strength and muscle and bone mass. Spaceflight conditions are known to cause loss of bone mineral density in astronauts, increasing bone fracture risk. Last mathematical models predict 33% of astronauts will be at risk for osteoporosis during a human mission to Mars.[30] A resistive exercise device similar to ARED would be needed in the spaceship.

While humans can breathe pure oxygen, usually additional gases such as nitrogen are included in the breathing mix. One possibility is to take in situ nitrogen and argon from the atmosphere of Mars, but they are hard to separate from each other.[58] As a result, a Mars habitat may use 40% argon, 40% nitrogen, and 20% oxygen.[58]

An idea for keeping carbon dioxide out of the breathing air is to use reusable amine-bead carbon dioxide scrubbers.[59] While one carbon dioxide scrubber filters the astronaut's air, the other is vented to the Mars atmosphere.[59]

Some missions may be considered a "Mission to Mars" in their own right, or they may only be one step in a more in-depth program. An example of this is missions to Mars's moons, or flyby missions.

Many Mars mission concepts propose precursor missions to the moons of Mars, for example a sample return mission to the Mars moon Phobos[60] not quite Mars, but perhaps a convenient stepping stone to an eventual Martian surface mission. Lockheed Martin, as part of their "Stepping stones to Mars" project, called the "Red Rocks Project", proposed to explore Mars robotically from Deimos.[62][63]

Use of fuel produced from water resources on Phobos or Deimos has also been proposed.

An uncrewed Mars sample return mission (MSR) has sometimes been considered as a precursor to crewed missions to Mars's surface.[64] In 2008, the ESA called a sample return "essential" and said it could bridge the gap between robotic and human missions to Mars.[64] An example of a Mars sample return mission is Sample Collection for Investigation of Mars.[65] Mars sample return was the highest priority Flagship Mission proposed for NASA by the Planetary Decadal Survey 20132022: The Future of Planetary Science.[66] However, such missions have been hampered by complexity and expense, with one ESA proposal involving no less than five different uncrewed spacecraft.[67]

Sample return plans raise the concern, however remote, that an infectious agent could be brought to Earth.[67] Regardless, a basic set of guidelines for extraterrestrial sample return has been laid out depending on the source of sample (e.g. asteroid, Moon, Mars surface, etc.)[68]

At the dawn of the 21st century, NASA crafted four potential pathways to Mars human missions,[69] of which three included a Mars sample return as a prerequisite to human landing.[69]

The rover Perseverance, which landed on Mars in 2021, is equipped with a device that allows it to collect rock samples to be returned at a later date by another mission.[70] Perseverance as part of the Mars 2020 mission was launched on top of an Atlas V rocket on 30 July 2020.[71]

Starting in 2004, NASA scientists have proposed to explore Mars via telepresence from human astronauts in orbit.[72][73]

A similar idea was the proposed "Human Exploration using Real-time Robotic Operations" mission.[74][75]

The rest is here:

Human mission to Mars - Wikipedia

Nostradamus' New Year 2023 Predictions: From Cannibalism On Earth And World War 3; Heres Some Shocking Claims Made By The French Astrologer  SpotboyE

Visit link:

Nostradamus' New Year 2023 Predictions: From Cannibalism On Earth And World War 3; Heres Some Shocking Claims Made By The French Astrologer - SpotboyE

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1440340/Cannon_Foundry_Simulator/Create futuristic cities, develop the infrastructure, make discoveries, explore and expand simply put, be the first one to build a settlement on the surface of Mars!

Have you ever thought of having a rover for a neighbor, red desert outside the window and Earth shining above you in the sky? Well, its high time you did! Welcome to the city of the future. We have a great public transport, efficient solar panels, fully automated homes and unlimited living space. Food is cheap, technology advanced, and people (along with robots) amiable. Mars town is a moonshot project (or should we say marshoot?) that will change the world!

The only thing left to do is to build it! And you have been chosen to start this process.

Develop the land and build roads, so that the city can expand further. You have an army of rovers and droids at your command, so youd better make good use of it! Erect the necessary buildings and then focus on what matters to you most technology, entertainment, terraforming, or discoveries? Enhance the quality of life on Mars and make everything in your power to make the city thrive.

There is a world beyond the domes of the town and nothing can stop you from exploring it! Hire people or program droids, and head out into the unknown! Fill in the blank spots on the maps travel across the land and find places that could be just right for erecting new cities. Remember about a supply chain, since you will need it to provide the outpost with food and resources.

To become self-sufficient, you need to gain resources. The simplest way to achieve that is to find a deposit and then start mining it this process requires a specialized team and a proper equipment. Make no mistake it only looks easy, but the most important part is to actually make it work. The Martian surface is extremely hostile for life, and you will need all the manpower that you can get.

Find a balance between stability and exploration. Acquire financial support to boost the colony, expand the settlement, and make people feel like at home under the great domes. But beware, no one knows what you may find during the process of the colonizationLets settle down and see what happens!

Read more here:

Mars Colony Builder on Steam

Welp, that didn't take long. The first civil suit against the still-imploding crypto exchange FTX was just filed in a Florida court, accusing FTX, disgraced CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, and 11 of the exchange's many celebrity ambassadors of preying on "unsophisticated" retail investors.

The list of celeb defendants impressive — honestly, it reads more like an invite list to a posh award show than a lawsuit.

Geriatric quarterback Tom Brady and soon-to-be-ex-wife Gisele Bündchen lead the pack, followed by basketball players Steph Curry and Udonis Haslem, as well as the Golden State Warriors franchise; tennis star Naomi Osaka; baseballers Shoehi Ohtani, Udonis Haslem, and David Ortiz; and quarterback Trevor Laurence.

Also named is comedian Larry David — who starred in that FTX Super Bowl commercial that very specifically told investors that even if they didn't understand crypto, they should definitely invest — and investor Kevin O'Leary of "Shark Tank" fame.

"The Deceptive and failed FTX Platform," reads the suit," "was based upon false representations and deceptive conduct."

"Many incriminating FTX emails and texts... evidence how FTX’s fraudulent scheme was designed to take advantage of unsophisticated investors from across the country," it continues. "As a result, American consumers collectively sustained over $11 billion dollars in damages."

Indeed, a number of FTX promos embraced an attitude similar to the cursed Larry David commercial. In one, Steph Curry tells viewers that with FTX, there's no need to be an "expert," while a Naomi Osaka promotion pushed the idea that crypto trading should be "accessible," "easy," and "fun."

It's also worth noting that this isn't the first suit of its kind. Billionaire Mark Cuban, also of "Shark Tank" fame, was named in a class action lawsuit launched against the bankrupt lender Voyager in August, while reality TV star Kim Kardashian was recently made to pay a roughly $1.2 million fine for hawking the "EthereumMAX" token without disclosing that she was paid to do so.

The FTX suit, however, appears to be the most extensive — and high-profile — of its kind. And while a fine for a million or two is basically a one dollar bill to this tax bracket, $11 billion, even if split amongst a group of 11 exorbitantly wealthy celebs, is a more substantial chunk of change.

Of course, whether anyone actually ever has to pay up remains to be seen. Regardless, it's still a terrible look, and real people got hurt. If there's any defense here, though? At least they didn't promise to be experts.

READ MORE: FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried hit with class-action lawsuit that also names Brady, Bündchen, Shaq, Curry [Fox Business]

More on the FTX crash: Experts Say Sam Bankman-fried's Best Legal Defense Is to Say He's Just Really, Really Stupid

The post Celebrities Are Officially Being Sued by FTX Retail Investors appeared first on Futurism.

Read the rest here:

Celebrities Are Officially Being Sued by FTX Retail Investors

Effecting Change

The disgraced former head of the crypto exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, built his formidable public persona on the idea that he was a new type of ethical crypto exec. In particular, he was a vocal proponent of "effective altruism" — the vague-but-noble concept of using data to make philanthropic giving as targeted and helpful as possible.

But in a direct message, Vox's Kelsey Piper asked Bankman-Fried if the "ethics stuff" had been "mostly a front."

Bankman-Fried's reply: "Yeah."

"I mean that's not *all* of it," he wrote. "But it's a lot."

Truth Be Told

If the concept of becoming rich to save the world strikes you as iffy, you're not alone — and it appears that even Bankman-Fried himself knows it.

When Piper observed that Bankman-Fried had been "really good at talking about ethics" while actually playing a game, he responded that he "had to be" because he'd been engaged in "this dumb game we woke Westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and everyone likes us."

Next time you're thinking of investing in crypto, maybe it's worth taking a moment to wonder whether the person running the next exchange might secretly be thinking the same thing.

More on effective altruism: Elon Musk Hired A Professional Gambler to Manage His Philanthropic Donations

The post Sam Bankman-Fried Admits the "Ethics Stuff" Was "Mostly a Front" appeared first on Futurism.

Link:

Sam Bankman-Fried Admits the "Ethics Stuff" Was "Mostly a Front"

Meat and Greet

Behold, ethical omnivores: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given a key go-ahead to what could be the first lab grown meat product bound for human consumption in the US.

The decision, a first for cultivated meat in the US, paves the way for Californian startup Upside Foods to start selling its lab-grown chicken product domestically — meaning that now, it only needs approval from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) before the ersatz chicken can hit restaurant menus.

"The world is experiencing a food revolution and the [FDA] is committed to supporting innovation in the food supply," FDA officials said in a statement. "The agency evaluated the information submitted by Upside Foods as part of a pre-market consultation for their food made from cultured chicken cells and has no further questions at this time about the firm’s safety conclusion."

Upside Foods' products were evaluated via a process in which manufacturers divulge the production process to the agency for review, along with a sample. If everything looks good after inspection, the FDA then sends back a "no further questions" letter to the company.

"We are thrilled at FDA's announcement," said Upside director of communications David Kay in an email to Reuters. "This historic step paves the way for our path to market."

Going Protein

Lab meat like Upside's aren't a plant-based imitation, unlike popular vegan alternatives such as Beyond Burgers. Instead, they're made from real animal cells grown in bioreactors, sparing the lives of actual livestock.

But while at a cellular level the meat may be the same, customers will definitely notice a difference in price. For now, cultivating meat remains an extremely expensive process, so pending USDA approval notwithstanding, it could still be a while before you see it hit the shelves of your local grocer.

To let eager, early customers try out the lab meat, Upside, which already announced its collaboration with Michelin star chef Dominique Crenn last year, will be debuting its chicken at specific upscale restaurants.

"We would want to bring this to people through chefs in the initial stage," CEO Uma Valeti told Wired. "Getting chefs excited about this is a really big deal for us. We want to work with the best partners who know how to cook well, and also give us feedback on what we could do better."

While the FDA's thumbs-up only applies to a specific product of Upside's, it's still a historic decision, signalling a way forward for an industry that's rapidly accruing investment.

Updated to clarify details regarding the FDA's evaluation of the product.

More on lab grown meat: Scientists Cook Comically Tiny Lab-Grown Hamburger

The post FDA Gives First Go Ahead for Lab Grown Meat Product appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original here:

FDA Gives First Go Ahead for Lab Grown Meat Product

Big Baby

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's name has clearly lost its luster among the parents of newborns.

According to BabyCenter's review of the data the name "Elon" has cratered in popularity over the last year, dropping from 120 babies per million in 2021 to just 90 babies per million, falling in the popularity rankings by 466 spots.

The name had seen a meteoric rise over the last seven or so years, but is currently falling out of favor big time, plummeting back down to 2019 levels.

The read? It seems like Musk's public reputation has been taking a significant hit.

Name Game

There are countless reasons why Musk could be less popular public figure than he was three years ago.

Especially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk emerged as a controversial figure, speaking out against vaccinations and lockdowns. He has also become synonymous with an unhealthy work culture, firing practically anybody standing in his way and forcing his employees to work long hours.

The fiasco surrounding Musk's chaotic takeover of Twitter has likely only further besmirched his public image.

For reference, other baby names that have fallen out of fashion include "Kanye" — almost certainly in response to the travails of rapper Kanye West, who's had a years-long relationship with Musk — which fell a whopping 3,410 spots over the last year.

More on Elon Musk: Sad Elon Musk Says He's Overwhelmed In Strange Interview After the Power Went Out

The post "Elon" Plummets in Popularity as a Baby Name for Some Reason appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original post:

"Elon" Plummets in Popularity as a Baby Name for Some Reason

Italian Import

Carbon dioxide has a bad rep for its role in driving climate change, but in an unexpected twist, it could also play a key role in storing renewable energy.

The world's first CO2 battery, built by Italian startup Energy Dome, promises to store renewables on an industrial scale, which could help green energy rival fossil fuels in terms of cost and practicality.

After successfully testing the battery at a small scale plant in Sardinia, the company is now bringing its technology to the United States.

"The US market is a primary market for Energy Dome and we are working to become a market leader in the US," an Energy Dome spokesperson told Electrek. "The huge demand of [long duration energy storage] and incentive mechanisms like the Inflation Reduction Act will be key drivers for the industry in the short term."

Storage Solution

As renewables like wind and solar grow, one of the biggest infrastructural obstacles is the storage of the power they produce. Since wind and solar sources aren't always going to be available, engineers need a way to save excess power for days when it's less sunny and windy out, or when there's simply more demand.

One obvious solution is to use conventional battery technology like lithium batteries, to store the energy. The problem is that building giant batteries from rare earth minerals — which can be prone to degradation over time — is expensive, not to mention wasteful.

Energy Dome's CO2 batteries, on the other hand, use mostly "readily available materials" like steel, water, and of course CO2.

In Charge

As its name suggests, the battery works by taking CO2, stored in a giant dome, and compressing it into a liquid by using the excess energy generated from a renewable source. That process generates heat, which is stored alongside the now liquefied CO2, "charging" the battery.

To discharge power, the stored heat is used to vaporize the liquid CO2 back into a gas, powering a turbine that feeds back into the power grid. Crucially, the whole process is self-contained, so no CO2 leaks back into the atmosphere.

The battery could be a game-changer for renewables. As of now, Energy Dome plans to build batteries that can store up to 200 MWh of energy. But we'll have to see how it performs as it gains traction.

More on batteries: Scientists Propose Turning Skyscrapers Into Massive Gravity Batteries

The post Startup Says It's Building a Giant CO2 Battery in the United States appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to read the rest:

Startup Says It's Building a Giant CO2 Battery in the United States

Elon Musk's Twitter operations are still in free fall.

Earlier this week, the billionaire CEO sent an email to staff telling them that they "need to be extremely hardcore" and work long hours at the office, or quit and get three months severance, as The Washington Post reports.

Employees had until 5 pm on Thursday to click "yes" and be part of Twitter moving forward or take the money and part ways. The problem for Musk? According to former Uber engineer Gergely Orosz, who has had a close ear to Twitter's recent inner turmoil, "far fewer than expected [developers] hit 'yes.'"

So many employees called Musk's bluff, Orosz says, that Musk is now "having meetings with top engineers to convince them to stay," in an  embarrassing reversal of his public-facing bravado earlier this week.

Twitter has already been rocked by mass layoffs, cutting the workforce roughly in half. Instead of notifying them, employees had access to their email and work computers revoked without notice.

Even that process was bungled, too, with some employees immediately being asked to return to the company after Musk's crew realized it had sacked people it needed.

According to Orosz's estimations, Twitter's engineering workforce may have been cut by a whopping 90 percent in just three weeks.

Musk has been banging the war drums in an active attempt to weed out those who aren't willing to abide by his strict rules and those who were willing to stand up to him.

But developers aren't exactly embracing that kind of tyranny.

"Sounds like playing hardball does not work," Orosz said. "Of course it doesn't."

"From my larger group of 50 people, 10 are staying, 40 are taking the severance," one source reportedly told Orosz. "Elon set up meetings with a few who plan to quit."

In short, developers are running for the hills — and besides, they're likely to find far better work conditions pretty much anywhere else.

"I am not sure Elon realizes that, unlike rocket scientists, who have relatively few options to work at, [developers] with the experience of building Twitter only have better options than the conditions he outlines," Orosz argued.

Then there's the fact that Musk has publicly lashed out at engineers, mocking them and implying that they were leading him on.

Those who spoke out against him were summarily fired.

That kind of hostility in leadership — Musk has shown an astonishing lack of respect — clearly isn't sitting well with many developers, who have taken up his to get three months of severance and leave.

"I meant it when I called Elon's latest ultimatum the first truly positive thing about this Twitter saga," Orosz wrote. "Because finally, everyone who had enough of the BS and is not on a visa could finally quit."

More on Twitter: Sad Elon Musk Says He's Overwhelmed In Strange Interview After the Power Went Out

The post Panicked Elon Musk Reportedly Begging Engineers Not to Leave appeared first on Futurism.

Follow this link:

Panicked Elon Musk Reportedly Begging Engineers Not to Leave

In just about a year, Facebook-turned-Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse vision has cost his company upwards of $15 billion, cratering value and — at least in part — triggering mass company layoffs. That's a high price tag, especially when the Facebook creator has shockingly little to show for it, both in actual technology and public interest.

Indeed, it seems that every time Zuckerberg excitedly explains what his currently-legless metaverse will one day hold, he's met with crickets — and a fair share of ridicule — at the town square. Most everyone finds themselves looking around and asking themselves the same question: who could this possibly be for, other than Zucko himself?

That question, however, doesn't really seem to matter to the swashzuckling CEO, who's either convinced that the public wants and needs his metaverse just as much as he does, or is simply just convicted to the belief that one day people will finally get it. After all, he's bet his company on this thing and needs the public to engage to stay financially viable long-term.

And sure, points for conviction. But conviction is easy if you're surrounded by a bunch of yes men — which, according to Vanity Fair, the founder unfortunately is. And with $15 billion down the line, that may not bode well for the Silicon Valley giant.

"The problem now is that Mark has surrounded himself with sycophants, and for some reason he's fallen for their vision of the future, which no one else is interested in," one former Facebook exec told Vanity Fair. "In a previous era, someone would have been able to reason with Mark about the company's direction, but that is no longer the case."

Given that previous reports have revealed that some Meta employees have taken to marking metaverse documents with the label "MMA" — "Make Mark Happy" — the revelation that he's limited his close circle to people who only agree with him isn't all that shocking. He wants the metaverse, he wants it bad, and he's put a mind-boggling amount of social and financial capital into his AR-driven dream.

While the majority of his many thousands of employees might disagree with him — Vanity Fair reports that current and former metamates have written things like "the metaverse will be our slow death" and "Mark Zuckerberg will single-handedly kill a company with the metaverse" on the Silicon Valley-loved Blind app — it's not exactly easy, or even that possible, to wrestle with the fact that you may have made a dire miscalculation this financially far down the road.

And if you just keep a close circle of people who just agree with you, you may not really have to confront that potential for failure. At least not for a while.

The truth is that Zuckerberg successfully created a thing that has impacted nearly every single person on this Earth. Few people can say that. And while it can be argued that the thing he built has, at its best, created some real avenues for connection, that same creation also seems to have led to his own isolation, in life and at work.

How ironic it is that he's marketed his metaverse on that same promise of connection, only to become more disconnected than ever.

READ MORE: "Mark Has Surrounded Himself with Sycophants": Zuckerberg's Big Bet on the Metaverse Is Backfiring [Vanity Fair]

More on the Meta value: Stock Analyst Cries on Tv Because He Recommended Facebook Stock

The post Former Facebook Exec Says Zuckerberg Has Surrounded Himself With Sycophants appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original here:

Former Facebook Exec Says Zuckerberg Has Surrounded Himself With Sycophants

Floored Apes

The value of Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs have absolutely plummeted, leaving celebrities with six figure losses, in a perhaps predictable conclusion to a bewildering trend.

Earlier this year, for instance, pop star Justin Bieber bought an Ape for a whopping $1.3 million. Now that the NFT economy has essentially collapsed in on itself, as Decrypt points out, it's worth a measly $69,000.

Demand Media

NFTs, which represent exclusive ownership rights to digital assets — but usually, underwhelmingly, just JPGs and GIFs — have absolutely plummeted in value, spurred by the ongoing crypto crisis and a vanishing appetite.

Sales volume of the blockchain knickknacks has also bottomed out. NFT sales declined for six straight months this year, according to CryptoSlam.

According to NFT Price Floor, the value of the cheapest available Bored Ape dipped down to just 48 ETH, well below $60,000, this week. In November so far, the floor price fell 33 percent.

Meanwhile, the crypto crash is only accelerating the trend, with the collapse of major cryptocurrency exchange FTX leaving its own mark on NFT markets.

Still Kicking

Despite the looming pessimism, plenty of Bored Apes are still being sold. In fact, according to Decrypt, around $6.5 million worth of Apes were moved on Tuesday alone, an increase of 135 percent day over day.

Is the end of the NFT nigh? Bored Apes are clearly worth a tiny fraction of what they once were, indicating a massive drop off in interest.

Yet many other much smaller NFT marketplaces are still able to generate plenty of hype, and millions of dollars in sales.

In other words, NFTs aren't likely to die out any time soon, but they are adapting to drastically changing market conditions — and leaving celebrities with deep losses in their questionable investments.

READ MORE: Justin Bieber Paid $1.3 Million for a Bored Ape NFT. It’s Now Worth $69K [Decrypt]

More on NFTs: The Latest Idea to Make People Actually Buy NFTs: Throw in a House

The post Celebrities' Bored Apes Are Hilariously Worthless Now appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original here:

Celebrities' Bored Apes Are Hilariously Worthless Now

Red Crew, Blue Crew

Had it not been for the heroics of three members of NASA's specialized "Red Crew," NASA's absolutely massive — and incredibly expensive — Space Launch System (SLS) likely wouldn't have made it off the ground this week.

During the launch, the painfully delayed Mega Moon Rocket sprang a hydrogen leak. The Red Crew ventured into the dangerous, half-loaded launch zone to fix it live. Incredible work indeed, although in spite of their heroics, keen-eyed observers did notice something strange about the so-called Red Crew: they, uh, don't wear red?

"How is it we spent $20B+ on this rocket," tweeted Chris Combs, a professor at the University of Texas San Antonio, "but we couldn't manage to get some RED SHIRTS for the Red Team."

Alas, the rumor is true. Red shirts seemed to be out of the budget this year — perhaps due to the ungodly amount of money spent on the rocket that these guys could have died while fixing — with the Red Crew-mates donning dark blue shirts instead. Per the NYT, they also drove white cars, which feels like an additional miss.

A leftover from last night that’s still bothering me:

how is it we spent $20B+ on this rocket but we couldn’t manage to get some RED SHIRTS for the Red Team pic.twitter.com/FO10Y6mg3H

— Chris Combs (@DrChrisCombs) November 16, 2022

Packing Nuts

For their part, the Red Crew didn't seem to care all that much, at least not in the moment. They were very much focused on needing to "torque" the "packing nuts," as they reportedly said during a post-launch interview on NASA TV. In other words, they were busy with your casual rocket science. And adrenaline, because, uh, risk of death.

"All I can say is we were very excited," Red Crew member Trent Annis told NASA TV, according to the NYT. "I was ready to get up there and go."

"We were very focused on what was happening up there," he added. "It's creaking, it's making venting noises, it's pretty scary."

In any case, shoutout to the Red Crew. The Artemis I liftoff is historic, and wouldn't have happened if they hadn't risked it all. They deserve a bonus, and at the very least? Some fresh new shirts.

READ MORE: When NASA'S moon rocket sprang a fuel leak, the launch team called in the 'red crew.' [The New York Times]

More on the Artemis I launch: Giant Nasa Rocket Blasts off Toward the Moon

The post Experts Baffled by Why NASA’s “Red Crew” Wear Blue Shirts appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to see the original:

Experts Baffled by Why NASA’s “Red Crew” Wear Blue Shirts

No Photos, Please

NASA barred the press from photographing the launch site of its Space Launch System after it boosted the agency's Artemis I Moon mission into space earlier this week.

Multiple space reporters said on Twitter that the agency had sent them a message telling them they were prohibited from photographing the Artemis 1 launch tower after the liftoff.

"NASA did not provide a reason," Eric Berger, Ars Technica's senior space editor, tweeted. The reporter added that according to his sources, the ban was apparently an attempt to save face after the launch damaged the tower.

"So now sources are saying that yes, Launch Complex-39B tower was damaged during the Artemis I launch on Wednesday morning," Berger tweeted. "Basically, there were leaks and damage where there weren't supposed to be leaks and damage."

Damaging Reports

Later, Washington Post space reporter Christian Davenport posted a statement from NASA that seemed to corroborate Berger's sources, though he emphasized that there was "no word on damage" to the launch pad.

"Because of the current state of the configuration, there are [International Traffic in Arms Regulations license] restrictions and photos are not permitted at this time," the statement given to Davenport read. "There also is a launch debris around the pad as anticipated, and the team is currently assessing."

Whatever NASA's reasoning, it's pretty clear that the agency doesn't want unapproved photos of its expensive and overdue Space Launch System rocket going out to the public. NASA loves positive publicity, it seems — but not negative.

More on the Artemis 1 launch: NASA Says It's Fine That Some Pieces May Have Fallen Off Its Moon Rocket During Launch

The post NASA Orders Press Not to Photograph Launch Site After Moon Mission Takes Off appeared first on Futurism.

Read more here:

NASA Orders Press Not to Photograph Launch Site After Moon Mission Takes Off

Birth Canal

The James Webb Space Telescope's latest mind-bending image just dropped — and this one is, in a word, splendid.

As NASA notes in a blog post about the finding, the telescope's Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) was put to incredible use when capturing the "once-hidden features" of the beginnings of a star.

Known as "protostars," celestial objects like this one — found inside an uber-absorbant "dark nebula" cloud — are not yet stars, but will be soon. In short, the Webb telescope capture imagery of a star being born.

As NASA notes, the fledgling star itself is hidden within the tiny "neck" disk of the spectacular, fiery hourglass shape in the image — which is, as NASA notes, "about the size of our solar system" — and the colorful lights seen below and above this neck are emitted by the protostar's birth.

Countdown to a new star

Hidden in the neck of this “hourglass” of light are the very beginnings of a new star — a protostar. The clouds of dust and gas within this region are only visible in infrared light, the wavelengths that Webb specializes in: https://t.co/DtazblATMW pic.twitter.com/aGEEBO9BB8

— NASA Webb Telescope (@NASAWebb) November 16, 2022

Stellar Anatomy

While this incredible capture is not the first time space telescopes have observed star birth, Webb's latest does provide an incredible look at the phenomenon.

"The surrounding molecular cloud is made up of dense dust and gas being drawn to the center, where the protostar resides," the post reads. "As the material falls in, it spirals around the center. This creates a dense disk of material, known as an accretion disk, which feeds material to the protostar."

Some of that material, NASA notes, are "filaments of molecular hydrogen that have been shocked as the protostar ejects material away from it," most of which the stellar fetus takes for itself. It continues to feed on that material, growing more massive and compressing further until its core temperature rises to the point that it kickstarts nuclear fusion.

This gorgeous peek at that process is extraordinary to witness — and a yet another testament to the power of the mighty James Webb.

More on Webb: NASA Fixes Months-Long Issue With Webb Telescope

The post NASA Drops Stunning New James Webb Image of a Star Being Born appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to read the rest:

NASA Drops Stunning New James Webb Image of a Star Being Born

Worst Case Scenario

Elon Musk's Twitter-buying experiment is somehow going even worse than expected, amid reports that he's locked employees out of the company's office buildings.

As reported by Platformer's Zoë Schiffer, an email sent to Twitter staff yesterday evening informed them out of the blue that they wouldn't be able to get into their offices for the rest of the week.

"We're hearing this is because Elon Musk and his team are terrified employees are going to sabotage the company," Schiffer wrote. "Also, they're still trying to figure out which Twitter workers they need to cut access for."

Then, the saga somehow got even stranger today when Musk emailed staff asking them to come to the 10th floor of Twitter's headquarters — which, remember, they'd just been told they were locked out of — for a meeting on the 10th floor.

Ultimatums

All told, the aura of chaos surrounding Twitter since Musk's acquisition late last month has deepened to a comical degree.

News of the office closure, you'll recall, comes not long after Musk issued an ultimatum to the staff who survived his first purge the company's employees, in which he said that if "tweeps" didn't come into the office, they would be effectively tendering their resignations.

Just before the office closure announcement, Musk gave his new employees another apparent threat: that if they are not prepared "to be extremely hardcore" and work long in-office hours, they can cut and run with three months severance.

Unsurprisingly, many Twitter employees have chosen the latter — a move that some described to CNN's Darcy as a "mass exodus."

And in the face of all this contradiction and whiplash, who could blame them?

More on Musk: Panicked Elon Musk Reportedly Begging Engineers Not to Leave

The post Elon Musk Locks Twitter Employees Out Office, Then Asks Them to Meet Him on the 10th Floor appeared first on Futurism.

Continued here:

Elon Musk Locks Twitter Employees Out Office, Then Asks Them to Meet Him on the 10th Floor

The notorious ticket peddling service Ticketmaster has never been a fan favorite, and anyone who's ever bought a concert ticket there can attest to why. Preposterous prices, slimy junk fees, and terrible customer service are just a few of its mundane evils. In spite of how universally reviled it is, Ticketmaster has persisted as the king of the box office. But now, it's facing its worst PR nightmare in years — and that's saying something. Why? It made the fatal error of pissing off Taylor Swift fans, or "Swifties."

Swift's "Eras Tour," which will have her perform at over 50 venues in the US alone, is set to be one of the biggest music events on the planet. Biding their time, her fiercely loyal fanbase — probably the largest of any single artist and easily the most vocal online — have been waiting since 2018 for her next headlining tour. So, looking to guarantee a spot, many of them signed up for Ticketmaster's Verified Fans program, a system which was supposed to only allow a select amount of around 1.5 million real fans — as opposed to scalper bots — to buy tickets ahead of time.

It didn't work. Ticketmaster CEO Michael Rapino told The Hollywood Reporter that around 14 million users, some of them bots, rushed to buy pre-sale tickets this week, and it pretty much broke the service. Parts of the website immediately crashed, leaving millions either waiting for hours or suffering through a miserable, glitchy experience — only for some to be told they couldn't buy a ticket anyway even though they were verified. In total, Ticketmaster was barraged with 3.5 billion system requests, which is nearly half the population of the Earth and four times its previous peak.

Even with all the difficulties, it did manage to sell around two million tickets — but it's unclear how many of those went to actual, verified Swifties and how many went to scalpers.

And we suspect that Ticketmaster has made way more than that in the form of enemies. Search its name on social media right now, and you'll be returned with swarms of complaints from ardent Swifties and Ticketmaster haters crawling out of the woodwork.

To make matters worse, the maligned seller abruptly informed fans via Twitter that it would be canceling the sale of tickets to the general public originally planned for Friday, "due to extraordinarily high demands on ticketing systems and insufficient remaining ticket inventory to meet that demand."

With Ticketmaster shutting its doors, vulturous resellers who gobbled up tickets during the presale pandemonium remain the only alternative for fans, selling them at outrageous amounts as high as $28,000, Reuters reports.

Exceptionally crummy service isn't exactly a scandal in itself, but the magnitude of Ticketmaster's mishandling of the situation — and the blatant scalping it's enabled — has brought significant attention to the company's nefarious practices and its stranglehold on the market.

Now, politicians are jumping on the Swifties' grievances to call for Ticketmaster's head.

"Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly, [its] merger with LiveNation should never have been approved, and they need to be [reined] in," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), in a tweet. "Break them up."

"It's no secret that Live Nation-Ticketmaster is an unchecked monopoly," echoed Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), the chair of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

"The merger of these companies should never have been allowed in the first place," Cicilline added, stating that he's joining others to call on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to "investigate LiveNation’s efforts to jack up prices and strangle competition."

Ticketmaster was already a behemoth in the 90s when Pearl Jam — then one of the biggest bands in the world — tried to take them on. Eddie Vedder and his bandmates certainly made the concert corporation sweat for a time, but since then, it's only grown. In 2010, it merged with LiveNation, once its largest competitor and now Ticketmaster's parent company. Critics, like AOC and Cicilline, argue that this merger was in blatant violation of antitrust laws.

Monopolistic behavior aside, as well as frequently bullying artists and venues to give into its tyrannical demands, consumers don't have to dig very far to realize Ticketmaster is ripping them off. Buy a ticket on there and it could charge you a significant portion of the ticket price in service and other junk fees.

Another culprit? Its dynamic pricing model, infamously used in other industries like airline tickets and hotels, in which prices are continuously adjusted in real time based on demand. As a result, ticket prices are not made public before a sale begins. In theory, dynamic pricing is meant to make predatory resellers obsolete by keeping prices competitive. But really, it's just a good excuse for Ticketmaster to match its prices with that of ludicrous resellers and pocket the extra cash.

Furthermore, at least one 2018 investigation by CBC found that Ticketmaster was quietly recruiting professional scalpers into its reseller program, and turned a blind eye to them using hundreds of fake accounts to sell tickets.

Bearing all that in mind, you'd think Swift would speak up about the most recent fiasco over her tour.

And for a while, she didn't, driving fans frantic over her silence — which she's finally broken.

On Friday, Swift spoke out in a carefully worded statement on her Instagram.

"Well, it goes without saying that I’m extremely protective of my fans," she began. "It’s really difficult for me to trust an outside entity with these relationships and loyalties, and excruciating for me to just watch mistakes happen with no recourse."

Swift is clearly alluding to Ticketmaster here, and euphemistically summed up the situation as there being "a multitude of reasons why people had such a hard time trying to get tickets" — though she never specifically names the corporation.

Diplomatic as the words may be, they've dropped at the perfect moment, because The New York Times reports that the DOJ has opened an antitrust investigation over LiveNation's ownership of Ticketmaster (though at press time, official confirmation is still pending.)

Could this be the beginning of the end of the company's unfettered dominance? Maybe. Ticketmaster and LiveNation only seem to get stronger with the more bad PR they get. So taking them down? It'll take more than online outrage. However, with Swift looking poised to join the fight alongside the DOJ, maybe this time around the concert conglomerate will get a run for its money.

More on Taylor Swift: Taylor Swift Reportedly Threatened Microsoft Over Racist Chatbot

The post Ticketmaster May Have Finally Met Its Match: Furious Swifties appeared first on Futurism.

Excerpt from:

Ticketmaster May Have Finally Met Its Match: Furious Swifties

Nice Rocket

Revenge porn is a horrible thing, and Twitter should definitely continue to ban anyone who attempts to post it on the app. That being said, a video of a rocket taking off — an actual rocket, you pervs — does not revenge porn make, and shouldn't be flagged as such.

It seems like a silly thing to have to say, but such is the exact situation that spaceflight photographer John Kraus found himself in earlier this week. Kraus, who was on site to photograph the historic Artemis I launch, took to Twitter to post a mesmerizing video of the liftoff — only to find himself kicked off of the app shortly thereafter, due to the fact that his post, for whatever inexplicable reason, had been marked as revenge porn.

"I’d like to acknowledge that our good friend and rocket photography extraordinaire, [John Kraus], has been completely locked out of twitter since yesterday, for an arbitrary and silly reason, the day of the biggest launch of his career," read an angry tweet from the Tim "Everyday Astronaut" Dodd. "Worst possible timing."

I’d like to acknowledge that our good friend and rocket photography extraordinaire @johnkrausphotos has been completely locked out of twitter since yesterday, for an arbitrary and silly reason, the day of the biggest launch of his career. Worst possible timing pic.twitter.com/USNUajwPJ4

— Everyday Astronaut (@Erdayastronaut) November 17, 2022

Let Freedom Ring

Twitter finally let Kraus back online today. But for a rocket photographer, getting kicked off of Twitter on the day of the Artemis I launch really is a nightmare scenario.

"Almost two days later, I'm back. Twitter just acknowledged that they falsely locked my account instantly after I posted a benign video/caption of the Artemis I launch," he tweeted upon his return. "This was an unfortunate error after one of the biggest launches of my career."

While there was some speculation that new Twitter owner Elon Musk — who fired waves of employees, then effectively forced a mass exodus of quitters, and has reportedly been begging employees to come back so the ship that is Twitter doesn't fully sink beneath the digital waves — was to blame for Kraus' unfortunately-timed ban, given the chaos that's ensued on the tech side since Musk's takeover. Kraus, however, denied that Musk had anything to do with it.

"Anyone speculating it had to do with [Elon Musk] / new Twitter policy / not wanting NASA content instead of SpaceX, or that it was an ITAR violation — you are WRONG," he clarified. "It was falsely auto-flagged by software/AI."

So, maybe not Musk's fault, but a screwup that now falls directly on his presumably still-full plate. Anyway. We're glad that Kraus is free. And, for the record, here's the video that led to the whole debacle:

For reference, this was the original, exact tweet that got my account falsely locked for almost two days. It is now visible. Enjoy! https://t.co/Rpnaqfw6yX

— John Kraus (@johnkrausphotos) November 18, 2022

More on Artemis I: Experts Baffled by Why Nasa's "Red Crew" Wear Blue Shirts

The post Twitter Claims Video of Moon Rocket Launch Is Revenge Porn appeared first on Futurism.

See more here:

Twitter Claims Video of Moon Rocket Launch Is Revenge Porn