Human exploration of the Moon and Mars: implications for Aurora

Crawford, Ian

doi:10.1046/j.1468-4004.2003.45228.x

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there undoubtedly remains much essential reconnaissance work to be performed robotically on Mars, in the longer term there are very strong reasons for believing that a human presence will be required if we are ever to obtain a meaningful answer to the question of whether life ever existed, or still exists, on the planet (e.g. Boston 1999 ;Hiscox 2001 ;White & Averner 2001 ;Cockell 2004;Crawford 2004b;Clancy et al 2005). Moreover, if evidence for past or present life is found, that will mark the beginning, not the end, of the new field of Martian biology (and/or palaeontology, as appropriate), and the subsequent demand for follow-up investigations is likely to soon outstrip the capabilities of purely robotic exploration.…”

Section: Preparing For Marsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For all these reasons there are probably several decades of robotic Mars exploration ahead of us before sending people to the planet is likely to be either necessary or practical. However, as discussed by Crawford (2004b), by first building up a human spaceflight infrastructure on the Moon, and pursuing a robotic programme of Mars exploration in parallel, there is a realistic chance that, sometime before the mid-century, we will have developed the human spaceflight expertise, and the detailed knowledge of the martian environment, to make human missions to Mars both scientifically worthwhile and technically feasible.…”

Section: Preparing For Marsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The astrobiological case for renewed robotic and human exploration of the Moon

Crawford¹

2006

International Journal of Astrobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ambitious programme of lunar exploration will reveal much of astrobiological interest. Examples include: (i) better characterization of the impact cratering rate in the Earth–Moon system, with implications for understanding the possible ‘impact frustration’ of the origin of life; (ii) preservation of ancient meteorites blasted off Earth, Mars and Venus, which may preserve evidence of the early surface environments of these planets, as well as constraining models of lithopanspermia; (iii) preservation of samples of the Earth's early atmosphere not otherwise available; (iv) preservation of cometary volatiles and organics in permanently shadowed polar craters, which would help elucidate the importance of these sources in ‘seeding’ the terrestrial planets with pre-biotic materials; and (v) possible preservation of extraterrestrial artefacts on the lunar surface, which may permit limits to be placed on the prevalence of technological civilizations in the Galaxy. Much of this valuable information is likely to be buried below the present surface (e.g. in palaeoregolith deposits) and will require a considerable amount of geological fieldwork to retrieve. This would be greatly facilitated by a renewed human presence on the Moon, and may be wholly impractical otherwise. In the longer term, such lunar operations would pave the way for the human exploration of Mars, which may also be expected to yield astrobiological discoveries not otherwise obtainable.

show abstract

Section: Preparing For Marsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preparing For Marsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The astrobiological case for renewed robotic and human exploration of the Moon

Crawford¹

2006

International Journal of Astrobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these specimens were not, and could not have been, identified by parachuting a robotic vehicle into promising terrain. Rather, this discovery, and the debate surrounding it, relied on decades of careful geological fieldwork and patiently sifting through large quantities of carefully collected material with microscopes 26 27…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The next small step

Fong

2004

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The microgravity experienced in space missions has serious effects on human physiology. How to get a crew to Mars in an optimal state for landing and exploration remains a matter of some debate Astrodynamic considerations and existing propulsion technology limit the speed with which a crew can be delivered to and returned from the surface of Mars. A typical, energy efficient mission profile might involve six months of outward bound journey, up to a year and a half of exploration on the planet surface, and a return flight lasting another six months.1 All told this comes to nearly one thousand days, more than twice the length of any single mission in the history of human space flight and an order of magnitude longer than routine International Space Station operations.Several hazards await the crews of Mars missions, including radiation exposure and the psychological stress of spending 30 months in a confined habitat, further from Earth than any human in history, with death no more than a hull's thickness away. This article focuses on the effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body and our current understanding of the effects of microgravity on physiology. Physiology of microgravityProlonged exposure to microgravity seems to affect almost all physiological systems. Disturbances of haemopoiesis, immunosuppression, and endocrine changes have all been observed. [2][3][4] The effects of microgravity that are of key importance to human space operations are those on the musculoskeletal, neurovestibular, and cardiovascular systems. Effects on the musculoskeletal systemThat demineralisation of bone should occur in the face of the unloading associated with weightlessness is predictable from Wolffe's law. The rate and extent of this process is considerable, with losses of 1-2% of bone mass per month in flight.5 If unabated over the duration of a mission to Mars, this bone demineralisation, with its resultant hypercalcaemia and hypercalcuria, would leave crews at substantially increased risk of pathological fractures and renal calculus formation.The osteoporosis associated with space flight has been well documented. 6 The bone loss seems to be site specific, predominantly in the load bearing regions of the legs and lumbar spine.5 Study data variously implicate reduced bone formation resulting from osteoblastic dysfunction and excessive osteoclastic resorption. Both processes are probably involved, but their relative importance and how they are orchestrated remain unclear.In the absence of gravitational load, skeletal muscle also atrophies. Reductions in muscle volume and in peak force and velocity of contraction have been observed. The quality and quantity of muscle also change, with phenotypic shifts in muscle fibre type evident from biopsy samples. 9 These changes seem to occur in muscle groups associated with load bearing functions. In these groups the intrinsic mechanical and metabolic properties of slow twitch muscle fibres, associated with high oxidative capacity and low fatigueability, seem to alter to resemb...

show abstract

“…Many of the arguments for human exploration of the Moon also apply, with some modifications, to the future exploration of Mars (e.g. Spudis, 1992;Crawford, 2004b), but with the added dimension of searching for evidence of past or present life on the planet (e.g. Hiscox, 1999;.…”

Section: Planetary Explorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an Integrated Scientific and Social Case for Human Space Exploration

Crawford

2004

Earth Moon Planet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human exploration of the Moon and Mars: implications for Aurora

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

The astrobiological case for renewed robotic and human exploration of the Moon

The astrobiological case for renewed robotic and human exploration of the Moon

The next small step

Towards an Integrated Scientific and Social Case for Human Space Exploration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About