Why Mars? Why not the moon?



  • edited January 28
    @andy. I think you are extrapolating. The light dark cycle is likely the more critical factor. The one hour daily time shift is likely the bigger factor. It is relatively easy to adjust to a hour time change. But to do it on a daily basis is more challenging. Those working on the Mars projects went on a 25 hour day cycle to communicate with the rovers at the correct Martian time of day. Read my link. Some responded well while others did not. Btw it is actually only a 40 min time shift rather than 1 hour.
  • edited January 28
    I have an answer on blue light for you. Blue during the day is good for you but at night disrupts sleep by interfering with melatonin. Whereas redlight has a limited effect on melatonin. SO I doubt blue light during the day would be a problem
  • edited January 28
    I think you did not catch the part where i indicated that its the opposite on Mars, where during the day the light is red shifted, and at sunrise/sunset it is blue shifted.
  • edited January 28
    I think think the sky is only blue at sunset but not throughout the night
  • edited January 28
    yes correct. The sky is more red during the day as well. I was thinking if that'd have an effect on people.
  • edited January 29
    It doesn't seem like it but if you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see it
  • edited January 29
    ill see if i can find something. what i think im looking for is what blue light does to people during morning/night, and what red light does to people during the middle of the day.
  • edited January 29
    I posted a link with that info already. Just read it
  • edited January 29
  • edited January 29
    Indoor light can be adjusted. Smart bulbs now can adjust color temperature by adding more red or blue. Could easily have software adjust the color temp as sunset approaches, like the program for your computer f.lux.

    I have some smart bulbs, but the company doesnt have a blue light filtering thing for sunsets/sunrise. I could facilitate it by adding schedules to change temp at a certain time.
  • edited January 29

    Unlike our planet Mars doesn't have a protective magnetosphere to generate a magnetic field capable of repelling the various forms of radiation found in Space and that which is emitted from the Sun

    In addition to that Mars' atmosphere has only 3 layers, none of which possess radiation blocking characteristics, nor is there an Ozone layer to protect us from much of the radiation emitted by both the Sun and that flowing throughout Space like we have here.

    In just getting to Mars, an explorer would be exposed to more than 15 times an annual radiation limit for a worker in a nuclear power plant.

    So, like I've tried to explain, the varying levels of continuous radiation exposure we would receive on the surface, or even under the surface, of Mars (let alone what we encounter once we pass out of the Earth's atmosphere and/or while traveling through Space) would cook us from the inside-out as though we were in a planet size microwave.

    While even short term exposure to some forms of radiation can prove lethal, such sustained exposure would cause a variety of detrimental physical and physiological developments because various particles and, in particular, 'waves' of radiation are "mass-less" and thus able to penetrate a variety of substances and materials (like the unprotected soil and rocks of Mars) and possess sufficient energy to change or break DNA molecules, resulting in the degradation of the cellular structure, tissue damage, loss of bone and muscle mass, decreased cognitive ability, disease and other such debilitating developments associated with the continual exposure to high levels of the variety of radiation that one encounters outside of our own atmosphere such as alpha radiation, beta radiation, gamma radiation, x radiation, neutron radiation, galactic cosmic ray radiation, solar particle radiation and perhaps even some we're as of yet unaware of.

    Inevitably such exposure would lead to what is known as "genetic attrition" for those whose genetic and cellular structure proves hardy enough to survive long enough to procreate when such incurred debilities from sustained exposure would then be passed onto the next generation and so on, resulting in breeding yourself out of existence all because you weren't mindful of the reality, the situational awareness, of travel beyond our atmosphere and didn't take the necessary precautions to safeguard against the dangers of Space.

    So, ultimately, what I'm trying to explain here is that Martian soil is unusable as a building material and the expense of funds to pursue research to develop it as a building material is a wasted venture...period!
  • edited November -1

    Yes, ideally we would develop a means of mimicking the eco/biosphere of the Earth in a Space capable vehicle and housing units for our off-world exploration, mining, or even colonization efforts, that is, if we've any intent/chance of surviving the experience, or preventing the contamination of the Earth with vehicles or astronauts saturated in Space-based radiation.

    We really shouldn't half-ass something this crucial to our desire for travels beyond our atmosphere solely for the sake of expedience or utility as our need for survival is preeminent.
  • edited January 29
    @blue. I understand radiation and the radiation exposure from the atmosphere. But thanks for the detailed explanation. My only question was your statement that the soil is radioactive. And in fact I could not find any evidence that it is. Although it is still likely toxic because of perchlorates. The external radiation problem would need to be resolved. But the toxic soil is a different issue that would have a different solution.
  • edited January 29
    Hmm, perhaps I was a bit too detailed? Let me try to put this simply...

    Mars doesn't generate enough of a magnetic field, nor does it have enough of an atmosphere, to stop both the radiation floating around out there in Space and that being emitted by the Sun from engulfing, saturating and thoroughly irradiating the planet entirely, both its surface ("soil") and its sub-surface.

    Perchlorates are the very least thing anyone entertaining the idea of a trip to or stay on Mars needs to be concerned with.

    Understand now?
  • edited January 30
    Perchlorates have been identified on the surface of Mars. This has prompted speculation of what their influence would be on habitability. We show that when irradiated with a simulated Martian UV flux, perchlorates become bacteriocidal (meaning they kill bacteria).

    At concentrations associated with Martian surface regolith, vegetative cells of Bacillus subtilis in Martian analogue environments lost viability within minutes.

    Two other components of the Martian surface, iron oxides and hydrogen peroxide, act in synergy with irradiated perchlorates to cause a 10.8-fold increase in cell death when compared to cells exposed to UV radiation after 60 seconds of exposure.

    These data show that the combined effects of at least three components of the Martian surface, activated by surface photochemistry (interaction with all of the R-A-D-I-A-T-I-O-N), render the present-day surface more uninhabitable than previously thought, and demonstrate the low probability of survival of biological contaminants released from robotic and human exploration missions.

    In short the perchlorates, iron oxides, and even hydrogen peroxide found on the Martian surface have all been shown to be particularly deadly BECAUSE OF THE UNMITIGATED RADIATION EXPOSURE altering their typical harmlessness.

    Hopefully now you're able to understand that your interest in perchlorates is about as useful as those scientists at NASA wasting all of their time trying to devise ways of using Martian soil as a construction material.
  • edited January 30
    Perchlorates, and pretty much every damn thing else, don't even merit being factored into the equation when it comes to the dangers of RADIATION poisoning.
  • edited January 30
    @blue. You have a tendency to misinterpret my statements and then critique them. I have no interest in playing these silly games. We agree mostly. Nowhere have I tried to equate perchlorates with radiation. I understand the risk of external radiation and there is no debate there. The only point of disagreement is that the soil becomes radio-active. I am still not clear there is any data to support this. However even without radiation the soil would still be a challenge because of the perchlorate content. So you do not need to repeat the hazards of radiation. All you need to do is show me data that the soil becomes radio active.
  • edited January 30
    how far underground would one have to burrow to keep our DNA from being fried? I think only mole people will survive on Mars.
  • edited January 30
    It’s not a point of digging under. They need to use protective shields which I guess would be lead. Perhaps we could send all our gas guzzlers there to create a CO2 shield.
  • edited January 30

    And the problem I see is that you do not understand that it is impossible for a planet to block radiation without a magnetosphere or an atmosphere (the "data" you insist you aren't "clear" about), ergo, there is no "external" radiation because there is nothing on or around Mars to block the radiation from saturating and permeating the soil and substrate as it has for over 4 billion years.

    An article which explains Mars' particular environmental conditions in laymen's termed, plain English:

    My critique is the result of your insistence on trying to assign some degree of importance to the existence of perchlorates on the Martian surface when it just doesn't matter and hasn't for over 4 BILLION years.

    The place is liken to that of a french fry left in the microwave for far too many cycles...It doesn't matter what is there or even was there as it has been rendered long unusable now.

    p.s. Didn't you once say that you were an 'engineer'?
  • edited November -1

    At this point in time it is irrelevant however deep we might manage to burrow beneath the Martian surface as we'd all eventually wind up looking like 'mole people'.
  • edited January 30
    @blue, SCCR is a Doc.

    Boring machines launched by SpaceX to the Mars rescue. ;-)

    Dig deep enough anywhere, cosmic rays are moot.

    I don’t think we know enough about Mars 200’ down, but we will learn.
  • edited January 30
    @NKYTA. You need to shelter yourself from the atmosphere not the soil. Lead is the standard but very heavy. You don’t need to shield yourself from the soil. You may just struggle to grow stufff because perchlorate inhibit photosynthesis.
  • edited January 30
    Options to lead
Sign In or Register to comment.