Welcome to the StarCast for the week of July 6, 2025. I'm your host, Jay Schaefer, with my co-host Mike Lewinsky. Let's take a look at space weather from SpaceWeather.com. Jay Shaffer: So, Mike, what's happening with the sun over the next couple days? Mike L.: Hi, Jay. As last week, the sun is fairly calm. We are not expecting flares today. And our opportunity for geomagnetic storms is pretty small. There's a 15% chance over the next 2 days of an active condition. But to get to minor or severe, minor is at 5%, and severe is at 1%, so it is pretty unlikely we're going to see any kind of notable solar weather affecting the Earth for the next two days. --- ### Observing this Week: Scorpius Jay Shaffer: Okay. So, we've got a full moon coming up on Thursday, and so that means that the bright moon will probably wash out most of our night sky for observing this week. But this time of year is a good time to observe Scorpius, sometimes called the Orion of Summer. Of course, Scorpius refers to its scorpion shape. Sometimes, to me, it looks kind of more like a bow and an arrow. I can always kind of pick it out by the arc shape there, and then the bright red star Antares is part of what I call the arrow, but it would be the body of the scorpion if you were looking at it as a scorpion. And so, it's the bright red star that often gets confused for Mars in the southern sky this time of year. I always kind of think of it as the harbinger of the Milky Way, as the Milky Way usually rises just to the east of Antares, and Antares is just to the western edge of the Milky Way. So, if you're in a marginal sky, or a washed-out sky, like with the moon, and you're not absolutely sure where the Milky Way is, you can usually see at least Antares. So, look for the bow and arrow kind of shape in the southern sky, and that might be our big feature for the week. --- ### Interstellar Visitor: Comet 3I/Atlas Jay Shaffer: In our news, there was a newly discovered space rock that has a new designation: 3I/Atlas. The letter I stands for Interstellar. So, we have a visitor from another solar system. This has only been confirmed with two other objects besides this object in recent years. The Minor Planet Center (MPC) confirmed the new designation on July 2nd as 3I/Atlas, or Comet C/2025N1, which stands for Comet 2025, and N01. The MPC also said that there is a timid of reports of cometary activity, with a marginal coma and a short 3 arcsecond tail. So, it's official. We currently are being visited by what appears to be a comet from another solar system. The reason that we know this is an interstellar object, rather than a typical comet, is that its path is hyperbolic. That will bring it into our solar system, and it will actually pass between the orbits of the Earth and Mars. This is as opposed to an elliptical path that a normal comet would have. When we look at Oort Cloud comets, we can plot their path, and basically get an ellipse. With an elliptical path, that means that it will return to our solar system because it's a closed circle. Whereas a hyperbolic path means this is going to be a one-time visitor to our solar system. --- ### The Challenges of Going to Mars Jay Shaffer: In speaking about its path going to be passing between Earth and Mars, let's talk about Mars today. Today, Mike and I want to discuss the challenges of going to Mars. So, Mike, why don't you start us off with some thoughts on Mars in general? Mike L.: Many people will say it's the closest, most habitable planet, and it is really not habitable in any meaningful sense of the word. A human being would die as long as it takes to suffocate on the surface. There's no liquid water that we are aware of. There does appear to be frozen water available. The plans, and people have been talking about a Mars mission for decades now. As we were getting ready for this podcast, you mentioned the Mars Society, an organization that was formed in the 90s to advance missions to Mars. I certainly think that from a scientific and exploration standpoint, it could be an interesting project. Obviously, anybody who's paid any attention knows that SpaceX has been focused on Mars as their purpose. The reason why SpaceX exists is because Elon Musk believes that humanity needs a backup planet and a backup strategy in case something happens to the Earth. He has the intention of founding a colony of a million people on Mars by 2050. Jay Shaffer: Well, go ahead. Mike L.: He often over-promises things. He believed in 2020 that we would have a crewed mission on Mars already. He planned to launch something in 2024, which, had it launched in late 2024, with a 6-7 month travel time, we would have humans on Mars today. Obviously, that hasn't happened. Jay Shaffer: Yeah, and so, there's a lot of validity, I think, to the "eggs in one basket" argument. Early on, I had read Robert Zubrin's *The Case for Mars*, which is the landmark book for the Mars Society, talking about the colonization and exploration of Mars. As far as that, it makes a lot of sense when you think that here we are as a species, we've got molten rock less than a mile below us, and a vacuum of space 100 miles above us that we can't survive in for more than 10 seconds. We're in a timeline between possible asteroid collisions and extinction events. So, we are in a fragile position. That argument has often been made, "let's not have all of our eggs in one basket," so in case, for example, an asteroid slammed into the Earth, our species can continue if we had a sustainable, self-sustainable presence on another planet. So, that's the argument for it. I don't really have a problem with that argument as a long-term goal, but I think that, like you said, if we want to be a little bit more realistic and a little bit more pragmatic, I think that some of these, particularly the SpaceX goals, are probably not the best use of our economy's funds. What do you think about that, Mike? Mike L.: Yeah, I'm happy to see the science continue, and I believe that we will eventually end up with humans at least in orbit around Mars, maybe on the moons. I think 2050 is maybe not an unrealistic timeframe to see the first crewed missions that enter Martian orbit. I don't know if you've watched any of the series *For All Mankind* on Apple TV, but that's where the space race continues in this alternate timeline, and there is an ongoing race to get to Mars after the Moon, and I won't give any spoilers, but just a plug for that series, it's really well done. Jay Shaffer: Yeah, I'll chime in there. I think the classic science fiction utopian view of space was that we as mankind, as one person, one entity, would be the explorer of Mars. But given the history of rivalry, like is in the *For All Mankind* series, if we talk about split resources, rivalry attempts at Mars, that could be a motivator, or it could actually be something that takes away from the momentum or the ability to get there. --- ### Mars Sample Return Missions Mike L.: Right, and as a short-term goal, I think the focus on a Mars sample return mission is a good point to sort of pin this on. NASA and the European Space Agency have a plan for three missions. The Perseverance Rover, which is currently on Mars, is gathering samples, storing samples in tubes to be returned to Earth. Jay Shaffer: Mm-hmm. Mike L.: And then there are two more missions that are planned that will ultimately return a few rocks to Earth. So, three missions to Mars to get some rocks back. And rocks are famously less finicky about their environment than people are. They don't need water for the return generally, they don't need oxygen for the return journey. China also has plans for a Mars sample return mission. They originally thought in 2028 that they could do it in one shot using the Tianhuan 3 and the Long March 5 ascent vehicle. They've now revised that plan to looking at two launches to get samples back to Earth, and projected maybe 2031. I do know that the NASA ESA joint mission is way over budget by about $4 billion and over time. They're looking at 2040 as their time to bring back rocks. So, the idea that we're gonna get people to Mars and back, I mean, I can't imagine a one-way trip. It's, there's some pretty big challenges there, including the fuel that's needed for the return trip. There's a lot of excitement about the possibility of making fuel on Mars. It seems to me that if we're gonna send somebody to Mars and bring them back, the first stage is really sending missions to Mars that start refining fuel using automation. And then are able to return using fuel that is made on Mars. Once that's proven to be a viable strategy, then maybe sending a person there is not an inhumane sentence of death. --- ### Mars' Harsh Environment Jay Shaffer: We've killed so many robots on Mars, it's unbelievable. When we actually look at the number of total emissions to Mars and their success rate, it's pretty dismal. We're probably looking in the order of a 30% to 40% success rate, or partial success rate, in just sending robotic probes to Mars. So, we're not doing too well in just doing robotic exploration. So, I think that when you talk about trying to keep people alive and get them there, and hopefully back, that is getting less and less practical. I think that also earlier on, we thought there would be less challenges than there are. During the Viking I exploration of Mars back in 1976, it sent back all these pictures that basically made Mars look just like Utah. People were thinking that, oh, yeah, that's not so bad. We could get there, and it had blue skies, and red rocks, and clouds, and so it looked pretty inviting. But the reality is that the surface dust is toxic. The atmosphere is unbreathable and toxic; it's mostly carbon dioxide. The air pressure is near space, a lot nearer space than it would be any place on Earth, including the top of Mount Everest. We've had trouble with dust storms killing our machinery, and so, if dust storms can kill a machine, and that machine is doing life support, the chances of actually surviving on Mars are pretty slim. Conditions are a lot harsher than I think we initially thought of. Don't you agree? Mike L.: Absolutely, and the other piece in terms of those conditions is the lack of magnetosphere and atmospheric protection from solar radiation, and the need to basically dig into lava tubes or construct in lava tubes. Basically, this civilization is going to be probably mostly underground. You have to wonder why our backup plan for the Earth's surface becoming uninhabitable doesn't involve just digging underground. Humans have weathered out ice ages in caves, some of which were hand-dug in soft tufa. Jay Shaffer: Yeah, and we always talk about lava tubes on both the moon and Mars. How many lava tubes have you seen on Earth? Although there are some here, actually, rather close to my location in northern New Mexico, lava tubes on Earth might be as practical as lava tubes on another body. Mike L.: Yeah, I would agree with that, and I think that the prospects for the next 10 years are: let's get some rocks back, let's return some samples. See if Starship will eventually fly without exploding and complete a mission. Granted, some of those explosions were flight termination by design. But it does not have a great track record, and that system is our number one hope for a Mars mission today, a crewed Mars mission. It just is apparent. The last one blew up during fueling on the pad, and there's not another one currently on the calendar this year. I won't be surprised if they pull one off, but then there's Blue Origin. We didn't really mention that, but the New Glenn is going to be our next from the U.S. mission to Mars with some NASA ESCAPADE mission, I believe it is, which will study Mars' magnetosphere. They've slipped on their timeline for launch. They're like, "well, this is such a big rocket, we have plenty of fuel, we'll just take the long route." It looked like they're gonna launch at the worst possible window for a time to Mars. They're now talking about September or October. Well, November is about the longest journey to Mars you can make. When we're talking the difference of 3 months, if you get an optimal transfer window, it's a 6-month one-way trip. But if you don't, you're looking at more like 9 months, and it seems like Blue Origin has just decided, to heck with it, we'll launch when we launch. We have plenty of fuel. It doesn't matter if we take an extra 3 months to get there. Which, for instruments, okay, I suppose. Jay Shaffer: Yeah, and getting back to the "eggs in one basket" thing, there's also a case to be made for the Moon. The Moon is not that much less habitable, at least at the southern pole, with the amount of water that they're starting to discover there, than Mars. The Moon is a lot more accessible, and it actually is a little bit protected from radiation by the Earth. If you're going to live underground, you might dwell there. That would satisfy the "eggs in one basket" thing; if an asteroid hit the Earth, it probably wouldn't take out the Moon at the same time. It might be, if we had a sustainable, self-sustainable colony on the Moon, if there was a catastrophic extinction event on Earth, the Moon Society would be able to get back to Earth and recolonize a far more hospitable planet than it would be for Mars. So, just again, talking in that long-term scientific argument about the "eggs in one basket" thing. And the technological challenges are certainly there. Other than the "eggs in one basket" argument, there's no real argument, other than the glamour of exploration, as to why we should send our living, breathing bags of water to a planet, rather than just continue with more sophisticated robotic exploration. Mike L.: That's right, the robots can do just about anything a human can do. I think maybe the one piece that strikes me is just the excitement of it, that it's the sort of thing that you get an eyewitness account back from, the first person on the Moon, the first person on Mars, that generates a kind of interest and enthusiasm that probably inspires kids to go into the field. So, that's something that's about the only benefit that I see a human bringing, in scientific terms, that we don't get with. --- ### Funding and Planetary Protection Jay Shaffer: Also, of course, a fly in the soup has been the massive cuts to the scientific budget, the space budget, of NASA by the current administration. This is one of the other things that all these proposed and future missions to Mars, and a lot of the research that's going on, is being curtailed just for the lack of funding. Mike L.: Yeah, which is kind of funny when you consider that President Trump did, in fact, pledge that we would send people to Mars in his term. It was part of his inauguration speech, and then within months, the agency is being attacked. Obviously, he was taking a cue from Elon Musk, and I'm sure that was in his speech because Elon had sold him on it. Jay Shaffer: Yeah, and so this is... I don't want to get too deep into politics here, but I think that the reason that Elon Musk was wanting to do a lot of the budget cutting with the Doge thing was so that he could get more funding for his... This is his holy grail. This is his reason for being. The Mars thing is the one thing that Elon wants to do in his life, that is driving him. So, I think that he was basically robbing Peter to pay Paul just to get more money toward the whole idea of Mars. Mike L.: Yeah, that seems plausible to me. Jay Shaffer: So, in the long term, what do you think our best path forward is, and in your opinion, what do you think we should do about Mars? Mike L.: I think that the Mars sample return mission is a great mission, and that's clearly going to take a lot of money and effort, and maybe the Chinese will beat us to it. If so, great for them. I'd be excited to see samples return. Of course, it won't be the first material from Mars on Earth. We have meteorites that are almost certainly of Martian origin. And there are, of course, also concerns about, and this is something we haven't really talked about yet, but there are concerns of, could we bring back something, a microbe, that would be the exciting find of a century, to find evidence of life on Mars. I think that's what everybody's kind of secretly hoping for, or not so secretly hoping for. But conversely, once we start sending people to Mars, it seems inevitable that the surface is going to be contaminated. It will be very difficult to prove that any evidence of life that is found on Mars in the future wasn't inadvertently hitchhiked on a mission with a colony. So, there's an even better argument for keeping with robots as our primary scientific investigators on the Red Planet. Jay Shaffer: Yeah, so, basically preserving it as an unpolluted planet, where, whatever that environment is, it is pristine now, and if there's life there, which there was a story this week, they were talking about Mars clays, and how they could be a potential, very good substrate for life on Mars. So, preserving that is, I would think, as important as getting a person on the Moon that could possibly contaminate that, and certainly pollute that environment. Even with our robots, we do have sterilization protocols before they're sent to Mars. But there's been speculation that those weren't thorough enough. We could have already introduced something from our planet to Mars. Mike L.: Right. Jay Shaffer: I love those one-syllable answers. Alright, why don't we go ahead and wrap up this discussion for this week, and let everybody know that we want to thank everybody for listening to the podcast, and be sure to comment, like, and subscribe. Let us know what you think about our trip to Mars, and what you'd like to hear more about, or hear less about. You can also check out our personal websites. Mike's is wildernessVagabonds.com. And mine is Skylapser.com. The interim music for the podcast is "Fanfare for Space" by Kevin MacLeod from YouTube Audio Library. From the Deep Sage 9 Observatory, this is Jay Schaefer, and... Mike L.: Mike Lewinsky. Jay Shaffer: Wishing you all clear skies.