Should Humans Consider Mars As A Potential Home Of The Future?

Should Humans Consider Mars as a Potential Home of the Future?

The only home humanity has ever known is Earth. But the rise and fall of the dinosaurs shows that surviving as a species on this tiny blue dot in the vastness of space is tough and far from guaranteed. So, strap yourselves in, we are going on a journey of exploration to Mars.

The title refers to an ambitious, but possible concept of establishing settlement on Mars, which, if achieved, would be an unprecedented advancement in the history of humanity. Exploring the feasibility of this ambition has never been more relevant as we become increasingly aware of the dwindling resources on our own planet. Furthermore, with climate change effects increasing at a considerable rate, in two decades unless we take radical action, we will have irreversibly tipped towards self-perpetuating global warming. If current carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, by the end of the century global warming will increase to five degrees Celsius (Introcaso, December 19, 2018). Even at four degrees Celsius, excess hyperthermia deaths in the UK will increase by over 700 percent (Benati and Guerriero, November 4, 2020). Moreover, if world population numbers continue to surge, by 2050 it is projected to reach 10 billion (Dimick, September 2014). Even at our present population, 7.8 billion, we require 1.7 Earths to provide the necessary resources and waste absorption to survive (McDonald, 16 June 2015). These deplorable statistics show that Earth simply cannot sustain human needs if we continue to live as we do. Finally, in the event that Earth becomes untenable, inaugurating an extra-planetarian colonization may be paramount for the future of humanity.

In addition, humans are driven to explore the uncharted, break the boundaries of our scientific and technical limits, and then push further. The intangible tenacity to explore and challenge the boundaries of what we know has hugely contributed to our society for centuries. Travelling to Mars could be the beginning of a new era in space exploration, opening new challenges and possibilities of going deeper into space, and building towards the possibility of humans being a flourishing multi-planetarian species. Journeying to Mars may just be the beginning of a new age of space exploration.

This subject is a hot topic at present, with ground-breaking NASA projects hitting the headlines. For example, the most recent Perseverance Rover , landed on Mars on 18th February 2021. Furthermore, with SpaceX leading the charge in terms of space travel and the aim of sending humans to Mars, and, critically, returning, the literature and technological advancements are constantly evolving. Consequently, the various sources of research provide an informed answer to this question.

Before it can be established whether going to Mars is a practical, economic and ethical objective, it is necessary to consider five key factors which need in-depth analysis before answering the question posed in the title with any degree of confidence. These key areas include finance, ethics (psychological and physiological), technology, terraforming Mars and practical living. Each of these factors is taken in turn, below, by evaluating current research to support an informed conclusion.

Technology

Technology underpins the whole process, from the propulsion of the rocket, to successfully returning humans to Earth. Robots, such as the latest Perseverance Rover are able to offer invaluable data regarding the topography of Mars, any evidence of past life and the functioning of new technology. This intel is paramount for future missions to Mars. Spacecraft and astronauts will need to be equipped with the appropriate technologies for exploration, and a safe return journey. Dependent on developing technologies, the mission, including time in transit from and back to Earth, and on the Martian surface, will take about two years (NASA, July 20, 2020).

The process begins with propulsion. Mars is 140 million miles away (Victor, May 22, 2018) therefore, a large propulsion is required to send a rocket to Mars. Whilst NASA is advancing multiple propulsion systems, it is hard to establish which system is most suitable. The two most promising types of propulsion are electric and nuclear thermal propulsion. Both use nuclear fission but vary from each other. A nuclear electric rocket requires less mass to accelerate. This is advantageous because it means this type of propulsion is more efficient than nuclear thermal propulsion, but offers less thrust (Dejrah, March 30, 2021), ultimately increasing crew flight time. Whereas, in Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP), nuclear fission is used to heat hydrogen to very high temperatures providing a large thrust as hydrogen accelerates through an engine nozzle. Whilst being less efficient than electric propulsion, NTP produces a much higher thrust (Burns and Johnson, October 2019). This higher thrust reduces transit times, reducing crew s time away from Earth. The evidence suggests that current NTP technology is better suited for initial missions to Mars, due to factors such as lower crew transit times, greater mission range, and a greater ability to abort missions and return to Earth in the event of system failure (Burns and Johnson, October 2019). To reinforce this further, if Nuclear Electric Propulsion was used, transit duration would be approximately seven months, whereas an NTP rocket would take three months to reach Mars (Burns and Johnson, October 2019), which is much more practical and acceptable in terms of human considerations. However, with regards to long-term missions, nuclear electric rockets are more felicitous due to improved efficiency, particularly if leading companies such as SpaceX or NASA develop this type of propulsion to produce a similar thrust to that of an NTP rocket. It follows that nuclear electric rockets are most suitable given that this is a long-term mission.

However, we don t just want a one-way ticket to the Red Planet, we also need the technology to get back to Earth. The most crucial part of any plan for visiting Mars is arguably the return ascent, which represents a formidable engineering challenge. NASA is developing a spacecraft called The Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). NASA proposes that this vehicle would be pre-assembled and sent to the Red Planet, years prior to astronauts arrival (Strauss, October 2015).

This creates multiple problems, the most prominent being durability. If NASA are proposing to send a spacecraft to Mars two years prior to astronauts arriving on the Red Planet, the vehicle must remain fully functional for approximately 500 days (Strauss, October 2015), despite being pummelled by substantial dust storms and punitive ultraviolet radiation. Another problem which arises from the engineering plan, is having sufficient fuel for a return journey. The MAV will need 33 tons of propellant to break free from the Red Planet s gravity, which is too much propellant to send ahead (Strauss, October 2015). Therefore, the propellant will need to be manufactured on Mars. Intrinsically, the current plan NASA proposes is to send the MAV fully loaded with liquid methane and equipped with a chemical plant that would manufacture liquid oxygen from the Martian atmosphere (NASA, January 2021), to ultimately produce the required propellant for a return journey.

This process is expected to take approximately one to two years (Strauss, October 2015). Fundamentally, this ensures that when the MAV tanks are full and operational, the human crew being sent to Mars will be secure in the knowledge that they have a ticket home whenever necessary. This fact would become particularly significant if the crew had to abort the mission, in the event of a complication. The final stage of the mission would be the docking of the MAV with the orbiting Earth Return Vehicle (ERV). When the MAV does finally take off, it needs to sustain the astronauts for days, as they manoeuvre to rendezvous with the ERV (NASA, January 2021) that will transport them to Earth. The MAV detaches and performs a final disposal manoeuvre, placing it into an orbit which will not interfere with future Mars missions (Strauss, October 2015). An inauspicious end for a spacecraft which would play a momentous role in the history of humanity.

Another pivot is communication. The Mars One program suggests that all communication between Mars and Earth would go through Satellites (MarsOne, August 2014). However, as Mars is 140 million miles away, (Victor, May 22, 2018) there is a substantial delay. It would take between three and twentytwo minutes for the information to reach the other end (MarsOne, August 2014). This makes phone or video calls practically impossible, but messages such as texts or emails are not restricted. As communication signals are limited to the speed of light (MarsOne, August 2014), this is a fundamental issue that cannot be physically altered. This problem may become particularly prominent if emergency communication with an Earth operation was needed.

Whilst technology is in the developmental stage, NASA has stated that it is planning a crewed Mars mission in the 2030s (NASA, July 20, 2020), whereas SpaceX proposes putting a person on Mars as early as 2024 (Edwards, September 2020). Moreover, many of the technologies previously discussed will be exhibited on the Moon first, during the Artemis missions, a spaceflight program aimed to test the technologies that will be utilized for Mars missions (NASA, September 2020). The research suggests it s not a question of whether we have the capable technology or can develop it, it s more an issue of timescale in order to prove its reliability. It follows that technology is not a fundamental barrier to the proposition of establishing Mars as a habitable planet.

Finance

Travelling to Mars will be one of the most expensive operations in the history of space exploration. The feasibility of sending humans to Mars is significantly influenced by the expense of the mission. The Mars One Program estimates the cost of transporting the first four astronauts to Mars to be six billion US Dollars. This is the cost of all the hardware combined, as well as the operational expenditures and margins (MarsOne, August 2014).

This estimation is relatively low in comparison to other cost predictions. For example, a space logistics analysis conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology criticised this estimate as it believed it was too optimistic. The space logistics analysis revealed that establishing the first crew on Mars will require approximately fifteen Falcon Heavy launchers each demanding 4.5 billion US dollars in funding (Do et al., 2021). SpaceX founder Elon Musk, put the cost at ten billion US dollars per person (Gaffey, July 2017).

Whilst cost predictions fluctuate, it is evident that the process of sending humans to Mars will be incredibly costly. Although many parts of this process would be invariably expensive, one way humans can decrease the cost of the process is through the utilisation of reusable rockets. Elon Musk announced on the 30th of March 2017 that SpaceX has succeeded in launching and landing a reusable rocket (Yuhas, March 2017). This was a momentous achievement in reducing the cost of space travel, so that trips from Earth can become commercially viable. Reducing the material and technological waste in rocket launches will enable many more launches more frequently, allowing more opportunities for space exploration (Lazendic-Galloway, December 2017).

Such technological advancement should lead to reductions in cost however, it remains that transporting humans to Mars would be a hugely expensive operation.

The ethical debate is whether it is more appropriate to use this money to deal with challenges facing Earth rather than a hugely expensive mission with an unpredictable outcome. Travelling to Mars is not necessarily something that humans need to prioritize right now, whereas world hunger, poverty and climate change are contemporary issues. Despite humans evolving approximately seven million years ago (Wilford, February 2002), there is still so much that is unknown about Earth, and it has not been fully explored yet. According to National Geographic, around 1.2 million species are known to science and a new study predicts that there are 8.7 million species living on our planet (Watson, August 2011). Billions of pounds would be spent on a mission to Mars, whereas it could be far more valuable to invest in further exploration of our own planet.

History has shown us how exploratory ventures, ones that require a large up-front investment, result in lots of risk, and uncertain returns are usually government funded. But this may not necessarily be the case moving forward. As private enterprise begins to accrue a foothold in the space travel market, it is encouraging to see some promising signs of private funding. A cadre of millionaires seem to be committed to spending their fortunes on space exploration. Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and James Cameron are all involved with high-tech, high-budget enterprises that reveal a deep desire to explore (Marlow, August 2012). Therefore, if these missions can be privately funded, the difficult choices outlined previously in terms of decisions to be made in spending public funds may not be pertinent.

Given the scale of investment required and the significance of this mission for mankind, it should be viewed from an international perspective. If such international collaboration can be achieved, then human habitation may be viable and should be considered.

Practical Living

Mars is a barren, inhospitable planet, and a very long way from Earth, but that hasn t deterred organisations such as SpaceX and NASA. For example, during the next five years, Elon Musk wants to establish infrastructure on Earth and Mars that will allow humans to travel to Mars for potentially permanent settlement. Musk added he wants to make Mars a nice place to be before we get there (Lazendic-Galloway, December 2017). That will certainly be a formidable challenge, specifically due to Mars hostile environment.

Mars atmosphere is approximately 1/10th the atmospheric pressure of Earth s and is 95 per cent carbon dioxide. This means that punishing Ultraviolet (UV) radiation can easily travel through the atmosphere (Lazendic-Galloway, December 2017). On Mars, shorter wavelength radiation contributes to a much greater proportion of the Ultraviolet flux. These wavelength ranges, such as UVC and UVB are biologically damaging (Cockell and McKay, January 2021).

Furthermore, without a very dense atmosphere to protect it from heat loss, temperatures on Mars are much colder than Earth. At night, Mars temperatures can drop to minus 60 degrees Celsius, while daytime highs may reach 0 degrees Celsius. This is much colder than the average surface temperature on Earth which is 15 degrees Celsius (Lee, April 2018). Finally, Martian dust storms can cover the entire planet for up to a month. These storms do not occur often, but smaller dust storms are common, and can still have impact on power input sources such as solar panels (MarsOne, August 2014). These factors build towards the fact that without protective structures, Mars is uninhabitable.

Consequently, humans will require effective protection from these environmental factors. NASA devised a 3D-printed Mars Habitat competition. The Habitat Competition invited groups to design a sustainable shelter for a crew of four astronauts, using construction techniques enabled by 3D printing technology. A winning design was AI SpaceFactory`s habitat, called Marsha (Hitti, July 2018). Marsha s design utilises in-situ resources, removing the dependency on rockets to transport materials from Earth. Without having its design harvested from materials within the Martian surface, the cost of importing materials from Earth renders the project to be impossible, due to the significant propellant required that would impact on payload.

The Space Factory team utilised basalt fibre extracted from Martian rock and renewable bioplastic, processed from plants grown on Mars, to produce a material three times stronger than concrete in compression (AI SpaceFactory, August 2018). As previously stated, Martian conditions require structures that can withstand strong dust storms, atmospheric pressure and thermal stresses. Marsha s unique vertically oriented, egg-like shape maintains a small footprint, minimizing mechanical stresses at the base and top of the design (AI SpaceFactory, August 2018). With regards to the human experience, the design is spread over four levels and a large skylight is integrated at the top of the design, which acts as a light-well connecting all levels with diffuse natural light, while keeping the crew safe from cosmic radiation. Circadian lighting will be utilized to recreate Earth light, in order to maximize crew health.

Finally, space agencies and companies plan to send machines in advance of human crews to harvest the raw Martian materials and process them into forms that can be deposited and used to establish the habitat prior to astronauts arriving (AI SpaceFactory, August 2018). However, the confinement of four astronauts within the design could provoke physical and mental health issues (Brabaw, January 2019). Despite this potential issue, AI SpaceFactory has designed an efficient, protective and realistic habitat, that if used to eventually house humans on Mars, would certainly be suitable for human habitation.

Leading companies will also need to take into account the bare necessities of human life. The most important resource for any manned space flight mission is oxygen, which humans have the ability to create (Lazendic-Galloway, December 2017). On the International Space Station (ISS), most of the oxygen is processed by electrolysis, where electricity from the ISS solar panels, is used to split water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The ISS also utilizes large tanks of compressed oxygen (Barry, November 2000). This ultimately means that if astronauts use these systems, they will have an indefinite amount of oxygen, provided the life support systems do not fail. In spite of this, the oxygen produced in electrolysis relies heavily on the supply of water.

On the ISS, drinking water is maintained partially though recycling old water. The NASA water systems collect moisture from breath and sweat, urine from people, and run-off sinks and showers to keep the station hydrated (Ferro, September 2015). However, whilst this method of water processing would be effective for the mission to Mars, another water process may be required when humans are living on Mars. Therefore, astronauts can use the hydrogen gas that is a biproduct of the oxygen production from water, as well as the carbon dioxide humans breathe out to produce water and methane. This methane gas is then utilised for making rocket propellant. Reduce, reuse, recycle is the strategy for long-term outer space resource management (Lazendic-Galloway, December 2017).

The final requirement for human survival is food. The MarsOne program proposes that when the astronauts land, there will be storable food transported from Earth waiting for them to use. However, this storable food will only serve as emergency rations, as the enormous costs of launching and resupplying resources from Earth would make the mission impractical (MarsOne, August 2014). Humans on Mars will need to move away from complete dependence on shipped cargo and achieve a high level of self-sufficient and sustainable agriculture. However, the environment on Mars is largely juxtaposed with the environment on Earth. Therefore, plants on Earth that have evolved for hundreds of millions of years that are adapted to terrestrial conditions, will not grow well on Mars. A solution for this is to use synthetic biology to develop crops specifically for Mars.

This imposing challenge can be approached by building a plant-focused Mars bio-foundry. This automated facility would be capable of expediting the engineering of biological designs and testing of their performance under simulated Martian conditions. With sufficient funding and active international collaboration, this facility could enhance many of the traits required for crop growth on Mars within a decade (Llorente, July 2018). This would ensure that astronauts will be able to utilize these modified plants on Mars and will provide sufficient food for living practically.

These various facts, when combined, mean that we have the capable technology to produce life support systems. However, a very large power output will be required to sustain them. To generate this power, solar panels could be used. Solar panels would be an effective source of power on Mars due Mars thin atmosphere. The atmosphere would provide a much higher solar exposure to that of Earth s, as the Sun s rays are not being partially reflected as they are by the Earth s atmosphere. Despite this, the frequent dust storms on Mars may lower the solar energy collection rates significantly (LazendicGalloway, December 2017), and even if astronauts clean the solar panels manually, another source of power may be crucial for system maintenance. For this, NASA has suggested the use of Nickel-Hydrogen Batteries. According to NASA, during the night-time periods, the batteries would provide the necessary electrical power. The batteries recharge each day, utilising a small portion of the electricity produced by the solar cells, and discharge each night to keep the life support systems supplied with sufficient energy (Electrical Power, 2020).

It is undeniable that the hostile environment on Mars will make nearly every aspect of practical living dependent upon complex technology and intricate procedures. With this technology comes inherent danger in the event of technology or power failure, or indeed human error. Whilst it may be proven that life can be sustained in this hostile environment, another debate will need to be addressed in terms of the quality of human life and the psychological stress which may be associated with overcoming the many challenges Mars environment poses for human habitation.

Ethics

Even if we do eventually have technology capable of enabling travel and sustained human life on Mars, we must consider the ethical ramifications of going to Mars before we commit science, resources and significant financial investment to the endeavour.

A mission to Mars poses multiple risks for astronauts. After the ISS was completed, scientists noticed that exposure to weightlessness may have some deleterious effects on human health. Extended periods of weightlessness cause various physiological systems to change and atrophy. As well as this, astronauts on-board the ISS are often dealing with nausea, vertigo and daily headaches. However, their biggest problem is muscle atrophy, which forces astronauts to constantly exercise to abate the effects. Another serious physiological problem caused by weightlessness is visual deterioration. Previous NASA surveys revealed that one in four astronauts who flew missions of less than six months reported eye problems (Puiu, July 2020). This statistic becomes significant when comparing the approximate duration of a round trip to Mars six months when using an NTP rocket. ``These results are currently impacting plans for long-duration missions, particularly missions to Mars explained the ophthalmologist Dr. Thomas Mader, of Alaska Native Medical Center.

During a mission to Mars, astronauts would face health risks from two types of radiation: cosmic rays and energetic particles from the sun. These types of radiation can be harmful to DNA and increase the risk of an astronaut developing cancer. NASA s guidelines state than an astronaut should not be exposed to more than one thousand millisieverts of radiation in a lifetime. This is associated with a five percent increase in the risk of developing cancer.

According to a study, based on data from MSL s Radiation Assessment Detector, astronauts on a 360- day round trip to Mars would be susceptible to seven hundred millisieverts on their journey (Jha, May 2013). In terms of accumulated dose, it s like getting a whole-body CT scan once every five or six days , said Cary Zeitlin, a principal scientist in Space Science and Engineering Division of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder. These factors are hugely significant when considering the viability of transporting humans to Mars. Organisations must try to remove these physical risks or reduce them. Either that or you start changing the level of risk that you deem to be acceptable for your astronauts , said Lewis Dartnell, an astrobiologist at the University of Leicester.

A solution to reduce radiation exposure, is providing effective shielding on the spacecraft. A highly shielded module could be integrated within the design of the spacecraft, to shelter the astronauts for up to several days during periods of high solar activity (Jha, May 2013).

In spite of this, even if astronauts are shielded during their journey, NASA reports radiation on the surface of Mars would pose a risk to humans, as astronauts may spend a year or longer during a mission, thus increasing their total radiation dose further (Jha, May 2013). Not all adverse consequences of long missions into deep space are caused by external physical dangers. Extensive periods in space have been shown to provoke mental and behavioural issues. Therefore, organisations will also need to consider the significance of the mental effects of long-term space missions on human life. Confinement and isolation during space missions to Mars could have adverse impacts on mental health. When groups of people are confined in a small space for a long period of time, behavioural issues are inevitable, said NASA s Human Research Program. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between isolation and a decline in mood, cognition, morale and interpersonal interaction, as well as the development of sleep disorders.

NASA has stated that astronaut training, support and selection is vital for long-term space missions. To add to this, crews during the mission will be monitored closely (Brabaw, January 2019). NASA are utilizing new technologies to maximize a crew s mental health. For example, NASA scientists are using devices such as actigraphy, which is used to assess and improve sleep and alertness by recording how much people move and how much ambient light is around them. In addition, new lighting technology used on the ISS helps to align astronaut s circadian rhythms, which in turn improves sleep and therefore mental well-being (Abadie et al., February 2021).

As well as these human ethical considerations, it is also necessary to examine whether humans have the right to exploit the resources of another planet. Mankind has been driven by a need to explore throughout evolution. But do modern ethics alter our perception to the extent that exploration and colonization of Mars is now viewed differently? Should we assume that Mars is ours to colonize? We do not yet know what the long-term effects of the introduction of human bacteria to Mars will be. NASA s Office for Planetary Protection takes these issues very seriously, as they strive to protect planetary resources for possible future use. They have stated that when we explore new landing zones and places of interest, we want to confirm that native life isn t already there, before we contaminate or displace it with Earth life, riding aboard robotic explorers or the eventual first visit from human explorers (NASA, July 2016).

As human beings we have a responsibility to protect the welfare of the first astronauts that would travel to Mars. Organisations need to evaluate whether these ethical issues outweigh the scientific opportunities Mars presents. What is civilisation prepared to sacrifice in the interest of exploration? The mission cannot accept loss of life and must develop systems and processes to ensure wellbeing. Without this, the colonisation of Mars cannot be considered.

Terra-formation

Whilst organizations are proving, with technological advancements, that sustaining life on Mars is possible, with regards to long term settlement on Mars, a huge financial investment will be required to maintain the vital technology necessary for human survival. If humans can adapt the conditions on Mars to create a habitable planet, a lot of the proposed infrastructure and technology required for initial survival would become unnecessary.

Despite this, terraforming Mars has many challenges. To address these, researchers working for NASA proposed a way to warm up Mars. They suggested constructing giant orbital mirrors to reflect sunlight onto the surface. They estimate that by using this strategy, even the frozen water in the polar ice caps would be melted, which would provide humans with water, another crucial element for survival (Kanchwala, January 2021). Even if this is possible, the investment required would be enormous (Steigerwald, July 2018). In addition, NASA have criticised this concept as it would only contribute enough carbon dioxide to double the Martian pressure to one percent of Earth s (Steigerwald, July 2018).

Another potential way to increase the atmospheric pressure on Mars, is through heating its carbon dioxide filled soil. The research estimated that heating the soil could provide up to four percent of the needed pressure. However, this would require extensive strip mining over the entire planet to a depth of approximately one-hundred yards (Steigerwald, July 2018) .

The final idea that these researchers proposed, was redirecting comets and asteroids to hit Mars and release the carbon dioxide trapped in the poles of MARS (Kanchwala, January 2021). NASA s team s calculations reveal that many thousands of comets would be required, which renders the concept hugely impractical (Steigerwald, July 2018), the full consequences of this action uncertain, and once again the investment required would be enormous.

The European Space Agency`s Mars Express missions indicate that the majority of Mars ancient, potentially habitable atmosphere has been lost to space, stripped away by solar wind radiation. Even if this loss was obviated, allowing the atmosphere to build up from outgassing by geologic activity would take approximately ten million years just to double Mars current atmosphere (Steigerwald, July 2018).

Therefore, taken together, the results demonstrate that currently humans are incapable of terraforming Mars. Whilst scientists may conceptualize terraforming, the reality remains very far into the future. The evidence suggests that Terraformation is not yet viable, and without this, humans need to consider alternative options for sustaining life on Mars with the significant ongoing financial implications that follow.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the idea of a mission to Mars for the purpose of establishing human habitation is aspirational at a macro level. It is an adventure that is on the one hand aspirational but on the other an enormous challenge raising a number of fundamental issues that must be resolved before any key steps can be taken. Five key factors have been identified and considered by reference to published scientific papers and other academic authorities.

The research identifies two key options for spaceflight, but the critical question concerns the ability to engineer and support the return flight. This depends on complex technology and the application of that technology combined with the development of the necessary infrastructure and processes. However, what is clear from this research is that the cost of this operation is not only enormously expensive but difficult to predict accurately. The current predicted cost range is too great, and research will need to better define the cost before considering Mars as a feasible project. The prospective scale of investment needed is surely questionable given the ethical dilemma set out in this paper.

Technology at least conceptually, suggests that practical living is possible on Mars. However, it is the impact of the environmental conditions on astronauts both physiologically and psychologically that is difficult to predict and manage, particularly given the long-term nature of this project. The question that follows is whether the project can be justified ethically. Is it driven by man s spirit of adventure, the advancement of science, or the preservation of mankind? Does mankind have the right to inhabit other planets, or expose astronauts to the uncertainties that this whole mission would present?

The challenge of terraformation has led to a number of complex strategies being put forward, but at face value they seem to be extreme, almost abstract concepts which in terms of both timeline, cost and consequences are difficult to predict. It is easy to identify how the billions of pounds spent on such missions could be immediately invested in our own planet to, for example, fight world hunger, reduce poverty or reverse climate change.

Despite the implications arising from the factors set out above, there is an overriding need to focus on the long-term ambitions of human civilization if the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before , Stephen Hawking said in 2008 at a lecture series for NASA s 50th anniversary.

It must be true that the success of this mission will inspire the world with the ability and commitment of what must be a collaborative international adventure, and in the positive potential of humanity as a whole. If we are to leave a legacy of greatness, hope, limitless opportunity, and growth to future generations, then it is a mission we cannot afford to postpone, despite the scale of the task, risks, and the unpredictability of the outcome. The research suggests that the success of this mission is far from certain, but conceptually achievable. Therefore, it follows that humans should consider Mars as a potential home of the future.

Bibliography

- Abadie, L., Cranford, N., Lloyd, C., Shelhammer, M. and Turner, J., 2021. What Happens to the Human Body in Space?. [online] NASA. Available at: [Accessed 13 February 2021].

- Aispacefactory.com. 2021. MARSHA by AI SpaceFactory. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 November 2020].

- Barry, P., 2000. Breathing Easy on the Space Station | Science Mission Directorate. [online] Science.nasa.gov. Available at: [Accessed 10 January 2021].

- Benati, G. and Guerriero, C., 2020. Climate change and state evolution. [online] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: [Accessed 6 December 2020].

- Brabaw, K., 2019. From Radiation to Isolation: 5 Big Risks for Mars Astronauts (Videos). [online] Space.com. Available at: [Accessed 13 January 2021].

- Burns, D. and Johnson, S., 2019. Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Reactor Materials. [online] IntechOpen. Available at: [Accessed 10 January 2021].

- Caitling, D., Cockell, C. and McKay, C., 2021. ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION ON THE SURFACE OF MARS.. [online] Mars.nasa.gov. Available at: [Accessed 9 February 2021].

- Dejrah, R., 2021. Nuclear Propulsion: The way to send humans to Mars - Edge Of Space. [online] Edge Of Space. Available at: [Accessed 1 April 2021].

- DIMICK, D., 2014. As World s Population Booms, Will Its Resources Be Enough for Us?. [online] Science. Available at: [Accessed 6 December 2020].

- Do, S., Ho, K., Schreiner, S., Owens, A. and de Weck, O., 2014. An Independent Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of the Mars One Mission Plan. [online] Dspace.mit.edu. Available at: [Accessed 6 January 2021].

- Edwards, C., 2020. Elon Musk plans to send humans to Mars in 2024 as SpaceX genius reveals timeline. [online] The Sun. Available at: [Accessed 7 January 2021].

- Ferro, S., 2015. How Do Astronauts Get Drinking Water on the ISS?. [online] Mentalfloss.com. Available at: [Accessed 11 January 2021].

- Gaffey, C., 2017. "You want to go to Mars? Then give us more money," says NASA. [online] Newsweek. Available at: [Accessed 12 January 2021].

- Hall, L., 2020. 6 Technologies NASA is Advancing to Send Humans to Mars. [online] NASA. Available at: [Accessed 11 December 2020].

- Hitti, N., 2018. NASA announces winning designs of 3D-printed habitat for Mars. [online] Dezeen. Available at: [Accessed 11 November 2020].

- Introcaso, D., 2018. Climate Change Is The Greatest Threat To Human Health In History | Health Affairs Blog. [online] Healthaffairs.org. Available at: [Accessed 16 December 2020].

- Jha, A., 2013. Mars mission astronauts face radiation exposure risk. [online] the Guardian. Available at: [Accessed 10 January 2021].

- Kanchwala, H., 2021. Can We Terraform Mars?. [online] Scienceabc.com. Available at: [Accessed 31 January 2021].

- Lazendic-Galloway, J., 2017. How to survive on the red planet. [online] Monash Lens. Available at: [Accessed 11 December 2020].

- Lee, L., 2018. Similarities Differences in Mars Earth. [online] Sciencing. Available at: [Accessed 10 December 2020].

- Llorente, B., 2018. How to grow crops on Mars if we are to live on the red planet. [online] The Conversation. Available at: [Accessed 16 February 2021].

- Marlow, J., 2012. Is a Privately Funded Manned Mission to Mar Possible?. [online] Google.co.uk. Available at: [Accessed 3 February 2021].

- MarsOne., 2014. Will the astronauts have enough water, food and oxygen? - Health and Ethics - Mars One. [online] Mars One. Available at: [Accessed 11 December 2020].

- MarsOne, 2014. What are the risks of dust and sand on Mars? - A Mission to Mars - Mars One. [online] Mars One. Available at: [Accessed 10 December 2020].

- MarsOne, 2014. How does the Mars base communicate with Earth? - Technology - Mars One. [online] Mars One. Available at: [Accessed 21 February 2021].

- MarsOne, 2014. Mission Budget - Finance and Feasibility - Mars One. [online] Mars One. Available at: [Accessed 13 January 2021].

- Mars.nasa.gov. 2020. Electrical Power. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 February 2021].

- McDonald, C., 2015. How many Earths do we need?. [online] BBC News. Available at: [Accessed 9 November 2020].

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2020. NASA`s Luna Exploration Program Overview. [online] Nasa.gov. Available at: [Accessed 10 January 2021].

- NASA. 2016. Before you continue to YouTube. [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 December 2020].

- Polsgrove, T., Percy, T., Rucker, M. and Thomas, H., 2021. Update to Mars Ascent Vehicle Design for Human Exploration. [online] Ntrs.nasa.gov. Available at: [Accessed 12 February 2021].

This resource was uploaded by: Seb