Russia Adv – 1ac

UQ – China Weaponizing

China is creating ABL systems in the status quo to attack the US – doctoral shift and Statements

Adams and France 05 - *Major in the High Frontier United States Navy **Colonel in the High Frontier US Navy (High Frontier, Vol1 Number 3, US Air Force, Journal for Space and Missile Professionals)
In the event of a future Sino-American conflict, it is likely China intends to exploit the vulnerability of US space sys­tems. Two key factors motivate Beijing to develop, deploy, and employ counterspace capabilities. The first is the need to neutralize the overwhelming conventional military advan­tage America currently derives from its space assets. In par­ticular, China fears that Amer­ican technical dominance en­courages Taiwanese defiance and emboldens the US to in­tervene militarily in a future crisis. Second, the Chinese desire to bolster the viability of their nuclear deterrent by securing the means to threaten a space-reliant US anti-ballis­tic missile (ABM) network. Both objectives are driving China to evolve its military doctrine and expand its technical ability to function against a high-tech, information-hungry enemy. Beijing has closely followed the technology-driven revolu­tion in US military affairs that, to a great extent, depends on spaceborne assets. The conventional military prowess demon­strated by the American military in recent operations seized the attention of Chinese strategists who view the space-networked nature of this new American way of war as a potential weak­ness. As a result, the Peopleʼs Liberation Army (PLA) is devel­oping new doctrine, based on surprise and information systems attack, to counter a threat it sees to its own strategic position. The dramatic space- and information-fueled success of US military operations over the past 15 years profoundly impacted Chinese military thinking. The decisiveness with which the US dismantled the Iraqi army in the 1991 Gulf War shocked Bei­jing and highlighted the vulnerability of Chinaʼs technological­ly inferior forces.5 Operations DESERT STORM and ALLIED FORCE led the Peopleʼs Republic of China (PRC) to develop a new Three Attacks and Three Defenses strategy emphasiz­ing denial of enemy precision strike, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance capabilities—all dependent to some degree on space systems.6 The introduction of Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided munitions in ALLIED FORCE heightened the PLAʼs consciousness of the critical role of space control in US warfighting.7 China witnessed yet another quantum jump in American exploitation of space-based communications, naviga­tion, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) in Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. The conduct of these operations increasingly leads Chinese strategists to focus on US Forcesʼ dependence on space, as evi­denced by several recent studies. A 1994 report by Chinaʼs Academy of Military Science (AMS) emphasized the Ameri­can military appetite for satellite services, noting 70 percent of all US military communications and 90 percent of all military intelligence flows through spaceborne systems.8 A 1997 pa­per by Chinaʼs Commission of Science, Technology, and In­dustry (COSTIND) characterized US military exploitation of space-based systems as a potential Achillesʼ Heel. In 2000, a report from Xinhua, a state news agency of the PRC, described US over reliance on technology and space as part of “The US Militaryʼs Soft Ribs and Strategic Weakness.” The report went on to state, “For countries that can never win a war with the United States by using the method of tanks and planes, attacking the US space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice. Part of the reason is that the Pentagon is greatly dependent on space for its military action.”9 Open source Chinese pub­lications reflect Beijingʼs in­creased interest in spaceborne targets. In a 1995 meeting, members of Chinaʼs Central Military Commission (CMC) listed an adversaryʼs “nervous system and brain” as essential objectives in modern warfare.10 In a 1998 article, Captain Shen Zhongchang, Director of Research and Development at the Navy Research Institute in Beijing, described “mastery of outer space” as a precondition for victory in future battles.11 In 1999, the Vice Minister of COSTIND stated, “Since GPS is playing an ever-increasing role in long-range precision attacks, precision bombing, accurate deployment of troops, requests for reinforcements and unified actions for command and control, anti-satellite systems centered on satellite navigation will be developed...”12 It is apparent Chinese strategists have identi­fied American space systems as a Center of Gravity and seek to degrade this asymmetric advantage through development of counterspace means. Beijingʼs evolving military strategy could dramatically shape the conduct of a future Sino-American clash in Asia.

***Mars Adv

Mars Adv – 1ac

Extinction is inevitable – Mars colonization is the only chance at human survival

Leitner, ^{1, 2}, and. Firneis, ² 11–Ph.D. ¹University of Vienna, Research Platform on ExoLife, Tuerkenschanzstrasse 17, A-1180 Vienna, Austria. Ph.D. ²University of Vienna, Institute for Astronomy, Tuerkenschanzstrasse 17, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
(January, Johannes J. and Maria G “Is A Manned (One-Way) Journey To Mars Our Responsibility?” Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars151.html)

Life on Earth with its prodigious diversity and especially the homo sapiens sapiens as the most intelligent or at least most dominant species on Earth is exposed to permanent threats from inside and outside. Threats from inside as consequences of social conflicts and wars, but also pandemics denote only some of these conceivable scenarios. Impacts from asteroids have caused mass extinctions in the past and still pose the most popular risk for life on Earth. Furthermore gamma-ray bursts, supernovae, solar eruptions, cosmic rays and the stellar evolution of our Sun form additional astronomical hazards for life on our home-world. Certainly the chance for world-wide extinction is very low at present, but not zero. In this context the question is of importance how large is the risk (percentually) to demand a massive, expensive reaction from our side. Human life on Earth, being the most evolved species which we know up to now, according to our moral standards, has to be preserved absolutely. This is our responsibility! Colonizing our Solar System can help to minimize this risk of extinction and a manned journey to Mars should be the first step to initiate the conquest of space. Why a manned mission to Mars? Can it only be justified by the scenario of a threatened Earth or by the argument of bringing the first human to another planet as gaining his outstanding place in history. While overrating the development of robotics may seem to abolish the necessity of a steering (deciding) human, in reality the trained scientist collecting data on the Moon (Apollo 17) delivered more important data/samples to the Earth, than any robot/untrained colleague before. A space probe has to be configured well in advance with a restricted equipment to clarify specific hypotheses, for which at least part of the solutions have to be known prior to pose the correct questions. A human can decide on the spot in an unexpected situation. Why a one-way mission to Mars? This has the advantage that a part by part construction of a science-mission habitat could be set-up in a modular way in advance to provide the human investigators with an apparatus-set comparable to terrestrial geological and biological laboratories to perform experiments, which were not anticipated, while a robot could carry out only preconceived investigations. Thus a sample-return mission is obsolete. The greatest advantage is seen in the sociological point. A one-way mission and the necessary supply for humans with food, clothing and techniques (daily utensils) with several replenishment flights would maintain a long-persistent equipment which can outlast the lifespan of a radiation contaminated human. The government thus is not in the position to be the executioner of the astronauts due to the fact that material loss would doom the humans. Nevertheless, a one-way mission implies that the astronauts as well as the first Martian settlers will die on the Red Planet. What to do with their corpses - cremate them, bury them? This problem has not only a sociological implication, but also underlies the question: 'Do the humans have the right to settle on another planet?' We cannot rule out that Mars possesses its indigenous life (several clues as ALH84001, the methane abundance in the atmosphere, the results of the Viking measurements, water(-ice), etc. are known and subject to controversial discussions) making it feasible that life originated in the Martian past. Do we have the right to settle on Mars and to endanger its potential own biological evolution? Therefore Mars is only a wild-card for any potentially habitable object to be discovered in the future. Do we need a prime directive according to Star Trek - a consensus of non-involvement? From which starting point of life's evolution do we set this directive to be operational due to our own judicial feelings - for a civilization, a planet with plants and animals, for bacterial life, or also for a planet which could host life at present or in the future? Do we need a COSPAR planetary protection policy extended to all celestial bodies? Yes and No! Yes, we have to ensure that any life-forms on other planets and moons are allowed to carry on their evolution. However we have to ensure our own evolution as well. In case we decide not to settle Mars as a first step into outer space, we are dooming our own civilization which will evidently disappear at the very latest when our Sun turns to the Red Giant stage. This will not happen within the next one hundred years, but it will happen definitely. We believe that the pioneer spirit of our species has not diminished. A one-way mission to Mars and the decision to build a permanent station on Mars will be the first step to ensure our own future.
Nuclear Propulsion is ideally suited for travel to Mars – its vital to versatility, longevity and reusability

Badescu 09—he graduated and got his P.h.D at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Bucarest and is an Associate Professor in the Chair of Applied Thermodynamics at the Polytechnic University of Bucarest Energetics Faculty in the same University

(Viorel, “Mars: Prospective Energy and Material Resources” GoogleBooks)

The application of Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) to space missions has been a topic of increasing interest (Elliott 200%). NEP systems appear ideally suited for a range of deep space missions where high delta-V and high power at the target bodies are enabled by the use of nuclear power and electric propulsion systems. Somewhat less obvious, however. are the benefits of NEP for inner planet missions to Mars or Venus, or other near-Earth objects (NEOs) where chemical propulsion and solar power have proven adequate in the past. However the utility of NEP vehicles in the inner solar system is greatly enhanced when the versatility. longevity, and reusability of such a system is considered. NASA, JPO, and DoE started to develop a NEP Interplanetary Transfer Vehicle; a “Space Truck” designed for delivery of payloads from Earth to a variety of destinations, including Mars and Venus, dependent on mission needs. NASA proposes using electrical ion propulsion powered by a nuclear reactor for its Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, an element of Project Prometheus, which is scheduled for launch alter 2011 (Danneskiold 2008). Shortening the travel to Mars duration requires a better engine with less mass penalty, same as those for interstellar precursor missions and those which stretch our technical (Lipinski I)99) capabilities in the directions needed for later interstellar travel (Malhotra 1999. Jewitt 1999). Nuclear electric propulsion shown in Fig. 7.7 has the advantages of flexibility in design and flight-proven hardware, but the disadvantages of complexity of design and a big heat rejection subsystem putting value in the amount of money, time, and research already done on various designs (McGinnis 2004).
Only nuclear propulsion can withstand the harsh conditions on Mars

Lemos 7 (9-20, Robert, “Space Industry Wants Nuke Power, but Public Fear Persists” http://www.wired.com/print/science/space/news/2007/09/space_nukes)
Proponents argue that nuclear propulsion could allow space probes, such as the Dawn mission to the asteroid belt, to reach their destinations faster and do more once they get there.  The public will have to overcome its squeamishness about nuclear power, if current plans for space missions and manned outposts are ever to become reality, industry experts told attendees at the Space 2007 conference this week. The public's fear of fallout and the government's worries about losing nuclear material have led to onerous requirements in using radioactive sources of power for space probes and to funding cuts for nuclear propulsion research, executives said. Future missions and the creation of outposts on the moon and other planets will require the technology, they added. "We need to restart development into nuclear propulsion," said Maureen Heath, vice president of Northrup Grumman's Civil Space division. " This is an area where we need to spend more resources to enable the next era of exploration." Nuclear power and propulsion for spacecraft are nothing new. Since the 1960s, the United States has had the capabilities to launch vehicles powered by radioactive materials. Experiment packages on many of the Apollo missions used nuclear power systems as well. In 2006, NASA shut down most of its research into nuclear propulsion technologies, a project the agency had dubbed Prometheus. The agency had contracted with Northrup Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin to propose future propulsion systems based on nuclear power. Nuclear propulsion encompasses any technology that uses a nuclear reactor to provide the energy for a rocket engine. The best-known engines are nuclear-thermal rockets, which use nuclear energy to heat a rocket propellant, and nuclear-electric propulsion, which uses the generator to ionize a propellant. Both outperform current chemical-based rockets and are currently under consideration only for spaceflight, not for lifting a rocket from the ground to orbit. Using a nuclear reactor for propulsion also solves energy problems for missions to the outer planets. Getting power from solar energy becomes increasingly problematic the farther the probe travels from the sun. Nuclear power would allow probes to stay active through planetary nights and not be threatened by any loss of light -- as happened during the recent sandstorms on Mars that almost doomed the two Martian rovers. "When people go to Mars, there is not enough sunlight" to satisfy the power requirements, said Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. "You are in a place where you need nuclear." NASA's latest probe, the Dawn mission to the asteroids Vesta and Ceres in the asteroid belt, uses a solar-powered ion drive for propulsion. By using a nuclear version, the probe could get to the asteroids more quickly and have better and more-powerful scientific instruments, industry experts said. "Mapping missions that explore multiple celestial bodies like comets, asteroids and moons are made possible by the highly efficient use of propellant that nuclear propulsion offers," Northrup Grumman said in a statement sent to Wired News. "The available electrical power used for propulsion can also operate vastly more complex scientific instruments and return hundreds to thousands of times more scientific data than other technologies.”
Other rockets won’t cut it – nuclear propulsion offers significant performance improvements while boosting durability

Bromely 1– P.h.D. Alternate Chair of the RPD Program Committee in ANS Reactor Physics Division-- Reactor Physicist, AECL - Chalk River Laboratories

(Blair P.“Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles Per Gallon,” http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html)

The Advantage of Nuclear Propulsion Systems Nuclear propulsion systems have the ability to overcome the Isp limitations of chemical rockets because the source of energy and the propellant are independent of each other. The energy comes from a critical nuclear reactor in which neutrons split fissile isotopes, such as 92-U-235 (Uranium) or 94-Pu-239 (Plutonium), and release energetic fission products, gamma rays, and enough extra neutrons to keep the reactor operating. The energy density of nuclear fuel is enormous. For example, 1 gram of fissile uranium has enough energy to provide approximately one megawatt (MW) of thermal power for a day.³ The heat energy released from the reactor can then be used to heat up a low-molecular weight propellant (such as hydrogen) and then accelerate it through a thermodynamic nozzle in same way that chemical rockets do. This is how nuclear thermal rockets (NTR's) work. There are two main types of NTR's^4,5,6: solid core and gas core. Solid-core NTR's (See Figure 2) have a solid reactor core with cooling channels through which the propellant is heated up to high temperatures (2500-3000 K). Although solid NTR's don't operate at temperatures as high as some chemical engines (due to material limitations), they can use pure hydrogen propellant which allows higher Isp's to be achieved (up to 1000 s), since Isp is approximately 1/M_propellant^0.5, where M_propellant is the molecular weight of the propellant. In gas-core NTR's, the nuclear fuel is in gaseous form and is inter-mixed with the hydrogen propellant. Gas core nuclear rockets (GCNR) can operate at much higher temperatures (5000 - 20000 K)⁴, and thus achieve much higher Isp's (up to 6000 s). Of course, there is a problem in that some radioactive fission products will end up in the exhaust, but other concepts such as the nuclear light bulb (NLB)⁴ can contain the uranium plasma within a fused silica vessel that easily transfers heat to a surrounding blanket of propellant. At such high temperatures, whether an open-cycle GCNR, or a closed-cycle NLB, the propellants will dissociate and become partially ionized. In this situation, a standard thermodynamic nozzle must be replaced by a magnetic nozzle which uses magnetic fields to insulate the solid wall from the partially-ionized gaseous exhaust. NTR's give a significant performance improvement over chemical engines, and are desirable for interplanetary missions. It may also be possible that solid core NTR's could be used in a future launch vehicle to supplement or replace chemical engines altogether⁴. Advances in metallurgy and material science would be required to improve the durability and T/W ratio of NTR's for launch vehicle applications. An alternative approach to NTR's is to use the heat from nuclear reactor to generate electrical power through a converter, and then use the electrical power to operate various types of electrical thrusters (ion, hall-type, or magneto-plasma-dynamic (MPD)) that operate on a wide variety of propellants (hydrogen, hydrazine, ammonia, argon, xenon, fullerenes) This is how nuclear-electric propulsion (NEP) systems work.^4,5,6 To convert the reactor heat into electricity, thermoelectric or thermionic devices could be used, but these have low efficiencies and low power to weight ratios. The alternative is to use a thermodynamic cycle with either a liquid metal (sodium, potassium), or a gaseous (helium) working fluid. These thermodynamic cycles can achieve higher efficiencies and power to weight ratios. No matter what type of power converter is used, a heat rejection system is needed, meaning that simple radiators, heat pipes, or liquid-droplet radiators would be required to get rid of the waste heat. Unlike ground-based reactors, space reactors cannot dump the waste heat into a lake or into the air with cooling towers. The electricity from the space nuclear reactor can be used to operate a variety of thrusters. Ion thrusters^1,2 use electric fields to accelerate ions to high velocities. In principle, the only limit on the Isp that can be achieved with ion thrusters is the operating voltage and the power supply. Hall thrusters² use a combination of magnetic fields to ionize the propellant gas and create a net axial electric field which accelerates ions in the thrust direction. MPD thrusters² use either steady-state or pulsed electromagnetic fields to accelerate plasma (a mixture of ions and electrons) in the thrust direction. To get a high thrust density, ion thrusters typically use xenon, while Hall thrusters and MPD thrusters can operate quite well with argon or hydrogen. Compared with NTR's, NEP systems can achieve much higher Isp's. Their main problem is that they have a low power to weight ratio, a low thrust density, and hence a very low T/W ratio. This is due to the mass of the reactor, the heat rejection system, and the low-pressure operating regime of electrical thrusters. This makes NEP systems unfeasible for launch vehicle applications and mission scenarios where high accelerations are required; however, they can operate successfully in low-gravity environments such as LEO and interplanetary space. In contrast to a chemical rocket or an NTR which may operate only for several minutes to less than an hour at a time, an NEP system might operate continuously for days, weeks, perhaps even months, as the space vehicle slowly accelerates to meet its mission delta-V. An NEP system is well suited for unmanned cargo missions between the Earth, Moon and other planets. For manned missions to the outer planets, there would be a close competition between gas-core NTR's and high-thrust NEP systems.

Nuclear propulsion is twice as cost as effective as the alternatives

Bromely 1– P.h.D. Alternate Chair of the RPD Program Committee in ANS Reactor Physics Division-- Reactor Physicist, AECL - Chalk River Laboratories

(Blair P.“Nuclear Propulsion: Getting More Miles Per Gallon,” http://www.astrodigital.org/space/nuclear.html)

Calculations for a Mars Mission So how do nuclear propulsion systems stack up against chemical systems for a particular space mission? Table 2 shows the results for a Mars mission comparing a high-performance chemical system (H2/O2) with a solid core NTR operating with hydrogen propellant. The payload mass is 100 tonnes and the round-trip travel time is 1 year (6 months to Mars, 6 months return to Earth). The structural mass fraction e is assumed to be 0.05 for the chemical system, and 0.1 for NTR system, to account for the extra mass associated with the reactor and shielding¹. The final results are striking. The chemical system has a payload fraction of about 17%, while the NTR system is 40%. More than three times as much propellant is needed for the chemical system. This will translate directly into higher mission costs since all the propellant must be launched into orbit. If we assume that it costs about $5000 per kg to put hardware and propellant into orbit, the chemical system will cost at least 3 billion dollars, while the NTR system would cost about 1.3 billion dollars. So, on the basis of launch costs, one could have two nuclear missions for the price of one chemical mission. Indeed, nuclear propulsion gets "more miles per gallon". What Progress Has Been Made in Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion? Both the United States and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have actively pursued research and development in space nuclear power and propulsion. In the United States, radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG's) were developed in the SNAP program (Space Nuclear Auxiliary Power)^5,6 and used in early test satellites in the 1960s, the lunar landing missions of the early 1970s, and most planetary space missions since then (Pioneer, Viking, Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini). The Russians built and launched a variety of nuclear power sources and reactors on military satellites up until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Their most famous and successful space reactors were the Topaz I and II.^5,6 In the realm of NTR technology, the U.S. had made significant progress in the period of 1955-1973 with the Rover and NERVA programs^4,5,6. Over 20 full-scale reactors were built and tested, and met the performance requirements for various space missions, including the use of NTR's for the upper stage of a launch vehicle, such as the Titan-III or the Saturn. Due to down-sizing in the 1970's, the NERVA program was cancelled before any flight tests could be performed. The advent of the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI)⁶ in 1983, and later the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI)⁶ in 1990 had renewed the interest in nuclear propulsion (both NTR and NEP), and extensive R&D began at various universities, government labs, and aerospace companies; however, Congress indefinitely shelved these programs in 1992, and only a small level of research has been carried out since. Like the U.S., the Russians built and ground-tested several NTR engine designs, operating on a variety of propellants, including hydrogen, ammonia, and alcohol. Although their work continued relatively steadily up until the mid-1980s, there is no evidence yet to confirm whether or not the Russians actually flight-tested any of these engines. In contrast, electric propulsion technology has been developing steadily since the 1950s. Ion and Hall-type thruster technology have matured to the point that they are now being used on operational commercial and military satellites with photo-voltaic power sources. MPD thruster technology is still under development, although many systems have flown on test satellites. For the purpose of maintaining a satellite's orbit, the solar-electric propulsion system is quite adequate.
Nuclear power has the highest degree of extractable energy and lowers launch vehicle requirements – it’s also vital to solving several colonization challenges

The Planetary Society 5 (March 2005, Nuclear Propulsion in Space, http://planetary.org/action/opinions/nuclear_propulsion_0505.html)
The very distance of the outer planets make for very long transits, often taking ten years or more before the objectives of the mission can be accomplished. While more powerful launchers can shorten trip time, they are expensive and highly inefficient for this application. And some goals, i.e., orbital reconnaissance of the far outer planets, cannot be accomplished at all without nuclear electric propulsion or more exotic means. These handicaps can be overcome by employing nuclear power. From a technical standpoint, nuclear material contains more extractable energy for a given mass than any other substance. Nuclear energy, converted to electricity, eliminates the need for solar panels whose size is impractical beyond Jupiter. Nuclear power can provide both electricity and heat for Martian explorers anywhere on the surface of the planet, whereas solar panels are most effective around the equator and in low latitudes. Furthermore, the use of solar panels limits the possibility of subsurface exploration because of the limited power available for drilling. Note that RTGs have been successfully and safely used on the Apollos, Vikings, Pioneers, Voyagers, Galileo and Cassini space missions. Nuclear electric propulsion can substantially increase payloads and lower launch vehicle requirements, for missions to the outer planets, in some cases with shorter trip times. In general, nuclear power facilitates intensive exploration of remote regions of the solar system such as a multi-objective tour, the major satellites of Jupiter, some of which are thought to harbor subsurface oceans, and sophisticated mobile laboratories on Mars, which could penetrate well below the surface. In the long run, nuclear power and propulsion will likely be needed for missions to carry humans to Mars and back.
Now is the key time for the US to go to Mars to maintain a high level space program—we have the technology

Zubrin, Ph.D.1o—President of the Mars Society, astronautical engineer, B.A. University of Rochester, P.h.D University of Washington

(November, Robert “Human Mars Exploration: The Time Is Now” Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html)

1. The Time Has Come The time has come for America to set itself a bold new goal in space. The recent celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo Moon landings have reminded us of what we as a nation were once able to accomplish, and by so doing have put the question to us: are we still a nation of pioneers? Do we choose to make the efforts required to continue to be the vanguard of human progress, a people of the future; or will we allow ourselves to be a people of the past, one whose accomplishments are celebrated not in newspapers, but in museums? There can be no progress without a goal. The American space program, begun so brilliantly with Apollo and its associated programs, has spent most of the subsequent four decades without a central goal. We need such an overriding goal to drive our space program forward (Zubrin 1997). At this point of history, that goal can only be the human exploration and settlement of Mars (Mitchell & Staretz, 2010; Schmitt 2010; Schulze-Makuch & Davies 2010). Some have said that a human mission to Mars is a venture for the far future, a task for “the next generation.” Such a point of view has no basis in fact (Zubrin 1997). On the contrary, the United States has in hand, today, all the technologies required for undertaking an aggressive, continuing program of human Mars exploration, with the first piloted mission reaching the Red Planet Mars within a decade.
Even a small initial colonization effort demonstrates viability – the alternative is human extinction

Gott 11— P.h.D. Department of Astrophysics, Princeton University

(January, J. Richard Gott, III, “A One-Way Trip to Mars” Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars151.html)

I've been advocating a one-way colonizing trip to Mars for many years (Gott, 1997, 2001, 2007). Here's what I said about it in my book, Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: "The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase our survival prospects by colonizing space. ... we should concentrate on establishing the first self-supporting colony in space as soon as possible. ... We might want to follow the Mars Direct program advocated by American space expert Robert Zubrin. But rather than bring astronauts back from Mars, we might choose to leave them there to multiply, living off indigenous materials. We want them on Mars. That's where they benefit human survivability.... Many people might hesitate to sign up for a one-way trip to Mars, but the beauty is that we only have to find 8 adventurous, willing souls" (Gott 2001). I've been stressing the fact that we should be in a hurry to colonize space, to improve our survival prospects, since my Nature paper in 1993 (Gott 1993). The real space race is whether we get off the planet before the money for the space program runs out. The human spaceflight program is only 50 years old, and may go extinct on a similar timescale. Expensive programs are often abandoned after a while. In the 1400s, China explored as far as Africa before abruptly abandoning its voyages. Right now we have all our eggs in one basket: Earth. The bones of extinct species in our natural history museums give mute testimony that disasters on Earth routinely occur that cause species to go extinct. It is like sailing on the Titanic with no lifeboats. We need some lifeboats. A colony on Mars might as much as double our long-term survival prospects by giving us two chances instead of one. Colonies are a great bargain: you just send a few astronauts and they have descendants on Mars, sustained by using indigenous materials. It's the colonists who do all the work. If one is worried that funds will be cut off, it is important to establish a self-supporting colony as soon as possible. Some have argued that older astronauts should be sent on a one-way trip to Mars since they ostensibly have less to lose. But I would want to recruit young astronauts who can have children and grandchildren on Mars: people who would rather be the founders of a Martian civilization than return to a ticker-tape parade on Earth. Founding a colony on Mars would change the course of world history. You couldn't even call it "world" history anymore. If colonizing Mars to increase the survival prospects of the human species is our goal, then, since money is short, we should concentrate on that goal. In New Scientist (Gott 1997) I said: "And if colonization were the goal, you would not have to bring astronauts back from Mars after all; that is where we want them. Instead we could equip them to stay and establish a colony at the outset, a good strategy if one is worried that funding for the space programme may not last. So we should be asking ourselves: what is the cheapest way to establish a permanent, self-sustaining colony on Mars?" I have argued that it is a goal we could achieve in the next 50 years if we directed our efforts toward that end. We would need to launch into low Earth orbit only about as many tons in the next 50 years as we have done in the last 50 years. But will we be wise enough to do this?
Colonization of Mars is inevitable – it’s only a question of when

Straume, Blatting, and Zeitlin 10—1NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 236-7, Moffett Field, CA 2NASA Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 188E, Hampton, VA 3Southwest Research Institute,1050 Walnut St., Boulder, CO 

(October, Tore, Steve, Cary, “Radiation Hazards and the Colonization of Mars: Brain, Body, Pregnancy, In-Utero Development, Cardio, Cancer, Degeneration” Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars124.html)

1. INTRODUCTION: Since the dawn of human evolution on the African continent, our history on Earth has been one of migration and colonization. As people outgrew their place of birth, they set forth to find opportunities in new lands. On a million-year time scale, we have finally colonized the entire Earth. In the not too distant past it was expected that the family remaining behind may never see their loved ones again when they sailed off to America. In less than 100 years, technology has made possible low cost rapid transportation between continents so that what used to require months now requires only hours. So too, will our journey into the cosmos be made increasingly accessible through technological advances. It should be expected as a matter of natural progression that as we outgrew our birthplace we will eventually outgrow our birth planet. Colonization of space is inevitable--just a matter of time. The first colony is likely to be on Mars because of its proximity to Earth and its climate. Analogous to the early explorers on Earth, the pioneers making the first journeys to Mars and its vicinity to explore and setup a base that eventually will lead to a continuously occupied colony, will face more hazards than those that follow. In addition to the many things that can potentially go awry during such pioneering missions, exposure to space radiation, which is about 500 times greater in space than here on Earth, must be minimized to the extent possible and its effects on human health must be better understood. In this paper, we describe the space radiation environment, the principal health hazards associated with exposure to space radiation, and the implications for human colonization of Mars.