Space

Three great places to live on Mars

Mars has as much land area as our own Earth, so we should have more than a few options when it comes to choosing a settlement site, right?
Mars has as much land area as our own Earth, so we should have more than a few options when it comes to choosing a settlement site, right?
View 8 Images
The Gale Crater
1/8
The Gale Crater
Valles Marineris
2/8
Valles Marineris
Inside the Gale Crater
3/8
Inside the Gale Crater
Valles Marineris can be seen running along the Martian equator
4/8
Valles Marineris can be seen running along the Martian equator
Inside the Gale Crater, as seen by the Curiosity rover
5/8
Inside the Gale Crater, as seen by the Curiosity rover
Mars has as much land area as our own Earth, so we should have more than a few options when it comes to choosing a settlement site, right?
6/8
Mars has as much land area as our own Earth, so we should have more than a few options when it comes to choosing a settlement site, right?
The mysterious Medusae Fossae Formation, as seen from above
7/8
The mysterious Medusae Fossae Formation, as seen from above
Curiosity in the Gale Crater
8/8
Curiosity in the Gale Crater

Assuming that SpaceX can refuel an orbiting spacecraft, build boosters capable of launching 1,000 times over, establish a propellant factory on another planet and of course, that you've got US$100,000 to spare, you could soon be faced with some pretty tough life choices. Earlier this week Elon Musk outlined his plan to send one million people off to colonize Mars, but there is a lot to consider when sizing up your own little patch of rock and dust. To get a handle on some of the likely settlement sites if Musk's interplanetary plans do materialize, New Atlas checked in with who we'll call realtors of the Red Planet to find out some prime locations to set up shop.

The fact of the matter is that there are tens, if not hundreds of potential Mars landing sites being bandied about by scientists concerned with such endeavors. At a NASA workshop last October, hundreds of researchers from around the world debated the strengths and weaknesses of 48 strong candidates, and the reality is these will be chopped and changed as we come to learn more about our dusty red neighbor. But hey, it's been a big week for Mars and the romantic notion of dreaming big, so we'll get into the spirit of things and let our imaginations run wild just a little.

What we know is that the landing sites should have plenty of potential for discovery, allowing explorers to hunt for signs of life and answer key questions about Mars without needing to travel far. But close proximity to scientific jackpots are no good if our pioneers can't survive, so the safety of the landing site is critical. Dr. Mason Peck, who served as NASA's Chief Technologist from 2011 to 2013 and now as an adviser to the Mars One mission, explains a couple of key considerations.

"A landing site needs ready access to water," Peck tells New Atlas. "That's not too difficult, since NASA has discovered that Mars is pretty wet. Even the driest parts, roughly near the equator, offer some water. But water is essential – not merely for drinking and, eventually crops, but also for radiation shielding. It's also a ready source of oxygen, through the same electrolysis that one might use to produce rocket fuel: H2 and O2. That simplest, most efficient of rocket propellants is safe, powerful, and a natural result of the same infrastructure necessary for other long-term needs."

The radiation Peck speaks of is another ominous shadow looming over our prospects of survival on the Red Planet. Here, within the confines of Earth's magnetic field and relatively thick atmosphere, we are safe from harmful radiation particles sent hurtling through space by galactic cosmic rays and solar flares, not to mention the constant stream of protons ejected by the sun. But Mars has no magnetic field to speak of and a much thinner atmosphere than we're used to, so although NASA is looking into materials and even artificial forcefields that might offer protection, a carefully selected site could certainly make things easier.

"A landing site probably should be near some natural formation that makes it easier to use regolith (the Mars soil) to provide radiation shielding for a long-term habitat: tunnel into soft regolith and shore it up like a mineshaft, move the regolith on top of a habitat to bury it, or some combination," explains Peck. "Sand or fine-grain material might be easiest. Certain lava tubes may also be suitable. This idea for radiation shielding is not new, but now that we are learning more about the surface geology, we can use that information to select landing sites that enable the astronauts, or colonists, to construct this sort of habitat. And it may be a lot more mass-efficient – so, cheaper – to use material from Mars than to bring everything from Earth."

Valles Marineris can be seen running along the Martian equator
Valles Marineris can be seen running along the Martian equator

Brian Enke is a senior research analyst at the Southwest Research Institute's Department of Space Studies and author of the 2005 sci-fi novel Shadows of Medusa, which tracks the exploits of human settlers in Mars' Medusae Fossae region. He tells us that it is important to note which areas should be avoided when selecting a landing site, a list that includes polar regions, volcano tops, extremely dusty basins and small craters with less than a 100 km (62 mi) radius.

"Why? Polar regions are very cold in the winter and very windy during other seasons," he explains. "Volcano tops offer very little atmosphere to protect settlers from radiation. Too much dust is harder to filter out of machines and people. Small craters are more hazardous and they restrict your exploration abilities."

The good news is that Mars has as much land area as our own Earth, so despite these no-go zones we're still left with plenty of room to do our thing. This means potentially a plethora of places where we could make our first footprints, but here are three that Enke tells us look very promising right now.

The depths of Valles Marineris

Valles Marineris
Valles Marineris

Known as the Grand Canyon of Mars, this deep gulf stretches 4,000 km (2,485 mi) along the Martian Equator and is 8 km (5 mi) deep in some places. On one hand, landing a spacecraft among the steep slopes, jagged gullies and potentially fierce canyon winds would be a mighty feat, but it may well be worth the risk.

Temperatures in the daytime can get close to a balmy 32° F (0° C) and it is believed that there may be spring-like deposits running beneath the deep canyon, where groundwater could burst through onto the surface. This makes it not only a good candidate for sourcing water, but an ideal hunting ground to search for microbial life. Its low altitude makes for a denser atmosphere, which means better radiation shielding, and it's probably pretty easy on the eye, too.

"Exploring the bottom of Valles Marineris would be the adventure of a lifetime," says Peck. "At those sheltered depths, what sort of geology, climate, or other fascinating discoveries are waiting to be made?"

Gale Crater

The Gale Crater
The Gale Crater

Sometimes it's better to stick with what you know. Sure, there's a lot we're yet to learn about Mars, but when it comes to sending humans to its surface some travel advice is better than none. In the few short years since NASA's Curiosity rover touched down inside this 154 km (96 mi) wide basin, it has found evidence of water and an ancient freshwater lake, analyzed valuable samples of soil, sent back weather reports and snapped spectacular selfies along the way. So if we do decide to make the Gale Crater our first Martian home, the fact that we've already got some idea of what to expect makes it as good a choice as any.

The mysterious Medusae Fossae Formation

The mysterious Medusae Fossae Formation, as seen from above
The mysterious Medusae Fossae Formation, as seen from above

Sitting between the highlands and lowlands near Mars' equator lies a roughly 1,000 km (621 mi) long clump of ... we're not exactly sure. A thick layer of dust conceals the Medusae Fossae Formation from the view of orbiting spectrometers, meaning that we have no concrete evidence of what exactly is lying beneath.

But because of linear ridges that align with winds ripping across the surface, we know that it is soft and easily eroded. This has led scientists to guess that it is a massive deposit of wind-blown dust or volcanic ash. Whatever that material turns out to be, it would probably come in handy for newly immigrated species in need of shelter, says Enke, with the site most likely offering an "abundance of building materials."

Spoilt for choice

Enke points out that these sites aren't overly unique, and the list of potential suitors is much, much longer. And given how much our knowledge of Mars has improved in recent times, it's likely that in the coming years research will uncover even more locations that could be the first to welcome human settlers. And if those settlers are equipped with the right tools, who knows what the possibilities might be?

"Within the past five years, our perspective has changed 180 degrees," he says. "We now see Mars as a planet rich in resources nearly everywhere we look, at least on a global scale (since we're looking at it from orbit). On a local scale, the outlook gets even better. We can rely on that great cosmic mixing-and-melting machine called 'asteroid impacts' to spread resources ubiquitously about the surface. Give our future settlers some mobility, and they should be able to find any resource they need."

15 comments
Bob Stuart
The worst wasteland on earth is far more hospitable. Let's look at the ecological damage to this planet this effort would cause, and see if there are more or fewer places for people to live afterward. If we think Earth will be uninhabitable in a few centuries, how long would it take us to ruin an unsuitable planet? Is Elon's dream to make us serial killers of worlds, or just to abandon the less greedy, more cooperative people at every stop?
Ianspeed
Well Said Bob Stuart, my sentiments exactly...
Nik
There is no 'great place' to live on Mars, everywhere is potentially lethal. Even the worst places on Earth are infinitely better, at least you could breathe. No oxygen, no water, no air pressure, arctic temperatures at the warmest, and frozen carbon dioxide at the coldest, do not make a 'great place!' When a rover can produce just one litre of water suitable for drinking, and one cylinder of oxygen, with enough to last one day, then I might believe that colonisation by humans is possible. The best plan would be to send robotic 'settlers' to prepare any selected sites for human occupation. The technology for it already exists, it just needs adapting to Martian conditions. If, and only if, the robots are successful, should any humans attempt to colonise, unless of course, they have a death wish.
ivank2139
People on Mars will need places to live before they get there. No point in going if there is nothing to do either. A lot of infrastructure needs to be in place before the first settlers arrive. Musk is building the transport system. Others will have to work on infrastructure.
tjkilcrease@msn.com
I'd like to volunteer 537 people for one way tickets.
Nik
This man Elon Musk reminds me of a certain George Donner, and his Hastings Cutoff. The results are likely to be significantly more tragic, as there is no 'spring' to look forward to on Mars, to then attempt to reach safety.
voluntaryist
You have to crawl before you walk. Colonizing Mars is like trying to run before you crawl. An off earth city should start with an orbiting city here, close enough to send help, while we learn how to exist off earth. Cities at varying distances would give us launch points for "world ships" which are independent. Next they could orbit the moon and mars to explore for habitation. Short visits from orbit could allow fact finding missions. This step by step method would be the safest, and in the end, the fastest. A more ambitious attempt that resulted in 100% fatalities would be psychologically and financially devastating. And it might so strongly prejudice opinion as to cripple and delay continued exploration, e.g., the Hindenburg disaster. However, whatever the fastest method is, that would give our species the greatest chance of survival. Leaving earth is like leaving the womb. Earth was a great place to being our journey, but staying too long would certainly be fatal.
Douglas Bennett Rogers
In a couple of hundred years, Mars may get to be like Kim Stanley Robinson's "Blue Mars" and be much more desirable for humans than the Earth. The erect posture of humans is much more suitable for .4 g than 1 g , at the average height of about 6 ft. There is plenty of nitrogen in the outer solar system to teraform Mars and it is easily accessible with fusion powered rail guns. The magnetic field is mostly important for protecting low Earth orbit, as the particles come in near the poles to be absorbed as the aurora.
PaulLehberger
The moon is closer, has water, and has commercial viability, including mineral resources and potential solar power collection. Why even consider Mars before the Moon?
Supersam
AND ... once again, we have the usual flood of nay-sayers. Unbelievable! Where's your sense of adventure, your human desire to explore, push back frontiers, discover the universe, "boldly go where no man (or woman) has gone before"? If we humans were all like you guys, we'd still be huddled in the relative safety of our horrid little huts in the dark ages, growling at the world from the hearth-rug. Don't you GET it?? This project is the very essence of humanity.
Thanks for reading our articles. Please consider subscribing to New Atlas Plus.
By doing so you will be supporting independent journalism, plus you will get the benefits of a faster, ad-free experience.