Mission to
Mars
Future or Fantasy
By John D. Turner
No one who knows me could doubt that I fully
support the President’s goal of bases on the Moon and a manned,
human exploration of Mars. I cut my teeth on Robert Heinlein, Arthur
C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and Lester Del Rey. I have been a strong
supporter of the space program since I first became aware of it. I
still remember faking a phone call home when I was in grade school
and “borrowing” the family TV set (a “portable” 13” black and white
Philco) so I could watch the Atlas/Agena hookup at school back in
the mid 60’s (I got into serious trouble for that one!).
Yes, I would like for President Bush’s space
initiative to succeed. I just think that it has about as much
likelihood of success as Frosty the Snowman taking a leisurely
stroll across the sunward side of Mercury.
Oh to be sure, I think that parts of his plan
will survive, particularly the part that calls for retiring the
shuttle fleet by 2010. Congress will be more than happy to cut
something unrelated to social programs and re-channel the money into
some pet project that translates into campaign money or votes. There
will be no new replacement for the Columbia, as there was for
Challenger. In fact, I will go a step further. It wouldn’t surprise
me if the Shuttle never flies again.
What then will happen to the International
Space Station you may ask. Well, I can think of several scenarios.
We could limp along with it as it is, crewed by two astronauts, as a
showpiece in space. We could abandon it as a bad deal and use the
money to “save social security” or some such. Or we could sell it to
the Chinese.
After all, why should we spend all that money
on space when we have so many pressing domestic problems down here
just crying out for funding? Particularly when we can outsource it
to China or India, like we have everything else?
There are several factors at work here that I
think will ultimately kill this venture.
First, it is a President Bush initiative. And
I don’t see any other Democrats jumping on the Space bandwagon
either. Quite the opposite, they are all commenting on how, during
this time of record deficit spending, we certainly can’t afford the
cost of this latest Bush boondoggle. And even with the Bush
reelection, with the Republican majorities in House and Senate
intact, there are still the elections in 2006 and 2008 to contend
with, not to mention all the ones between there and 2015, the
projected date for the return to the Moon, and 2030, the projected
date of the first Mars mission.
Next there is the cost. You may remember that
Bush’s dad proposed something very similar to this when he was in
office. And you may have noticed that it went nowhere. Part of the
reason for that was that the price tag for the Mars mission came in
around 400-500 billion dollars. And this was over 10 years ago for a
mission that would spend only 3-4 days actually on Mars doing any
science or exploration.
Now there were reasons for the high price tag.
Part of it was that every aerospace contractor and any company
remotely involved in space wanted a piece of the action. Part of it
was the mission profile itself, which called for a lunar base, a
space station, an on-orbit refueling station, and a spacecraft built
in space specifically to be used for a Mars mission. Sound familiar?
It should, it’s pretty much what George W. Bush is proposing today.
To be fair, part of this is NASA’s doings.
NASA is still smarting from the public’s loss of enthusiasm for its
previous Lunar program, which was halted three missions short of its
planned termination with no follow-on program, due to lack of
interest. NASA, riding high on its success, was rudely awakened when
the rug was snatched out from under with nothing to show for it but
a few hundred pounds of moon rocks and some excess equipment lying
about. This time they are determined to at least get a little
infrastructure out of the deal.
But is this the best use of the money? Can a
Mars mission be done for less, or does it have to cost $500 billion,
some say up to a trillion dollars to put a few astronauts on Mars
for a few days.
Some, such as Dr Robert Zubrin, author of “The
Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must”,
believe that it can be done for much less, at least an order of
magnitude. The Zubrin mission profile calls for a much longer
exploration period by the astronauts when they get there – up to 1.5
years, instead of the 3-4 days planned for what he calls the
“Battlestar Galactica” mission profile. A description of the Zubrin
mission profile, called “Mars Direct” was presented to the Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearings on the
future of the U.S. Space Program, by Dr Zubrin on 29 Oct 2003, when
he testified before that committee on the future of the U.S. Space
Program. Dr Zubrin’s vision, shared by some in NASA, is very
different from the conventional “Battlestar Galactica” approach, and
ultimately leads to a permanently manned presence on Mars – but no
lunar bases, space stations, or on-orbit refueling stations.
This absence of infrastructure and the
possibility that the nation will lose interest and leave NASA with
nothing to show for its efforts yet again but a few hundred pounds
of rocks is what is driving NASA’s lack of interest, despite the
cost savings involved. Of course, the space industry may also have a
hand here as well. $50 billion is of course much less than $500
billion. However, $50 billion in the hand is much better than $500
billion in the bush (if you will pardon my pun) and all things being
equal, it is more likely that Congress will make a $50 billion
commitment vice a $500 billion one. It didn’t do so last time and
isn’t likely to this time.
What NASA seems to be forgetting (along with
the rest of us) is that it really isn’t NASA’s function to provide
trucking and hotel services in space or to acquire infrastructure.
NASA is supposed to be in the business of exploration. The other
stuff should be left to private enterprise. Like any other
government agency, however, NASA’s prime goal is survival and
expansion when it can manage it. In this it is like a living
organism. And infrastructure that must be maintained guarantees it a
budget if the rug gets pulled out again.
This brings me to the third reason why this
plan isn’t likely to succeed. It requires long-term commitment and
funding.
I really don’t think this country is capable
of either any longer, absent a large, loud, and vocal constituency
to which politicians can pander. And there isn’t such a constituency
visible or on the horizon on which to hang a mission to Mars. Most
people either just don’t care or would rather the money be spent on
them instead.
The time scale and lack of interest pretty
much guarantees micromanagement by Congress, whereby budgets are cut
and mission/design compromises are introduced. The results of this
process can be seen in the Space Shuttle, where what started out as
a completely reusable system which was supposed to dramatically cut
the cost of putting payloads into space became a partially-reusable
system that actually cost more to orbit a payload than a throw-away
launch vehicle, and with the International Space Station, which is
smaller and much less capable than the original design. Congress may
not know much about the technical aspects of space flight, but they
are real good at micromanagement and “saving” money by cutting from
one program and reallocating to another.
There is even a small but growing minority who
believe we never even went to the moon, and that it is all just a
government boondoggle/cover-up/propaganda campaign/conspiracy (take
your pick) in the first place.
Finally, outside a few science fiction fans,
there is really little public interest. President Kennedy’s
challenge of putting a man on the moon in by the end of the decade
captured the public imagination. His tragic assassination ensured
that we would carry out what was perceived by many as his legacy –
landing a man on the moon. The landing was, rightly so, hailed as
one of the greatest achievements in human history. In the aftermath
however, the public lost interest. It became routine, watching those
astronauts cavort around on the moon. And it cost money. Money
better spent addressing problems (or buying votes) here on Earth.
President Bush is no President Kennedy. Few
are being inspired. Worse yet, many simply see it as campaign
rhetoric, designed to get him re-elected. The public can get better
entertainment these days from Hollywood than they can from NASA. The
special effects are better and it costs less. In the 60’s we were
concerned that the Russians might get there first. Today, it’s the
Chinese and we really don’t care much if they do. NASA has done a
very poor job of selling the public on why space exploration is of
value, as have our national political leaders, many of whom, for
their own personal political agendas, pander to other, opposing
constituencies, where there are more campaign dollars to be made for
their own re-election.
And people are getting bored with hearing of
how all the spin-offs from the space program have made their life
better. Part of this is because many Americans have no point of
reference to understand any longer. They have grown up with
computers and microchips, VCRs, DVD and CD players, cell phones and
weather satellites. Life is. Don’t tell me about how things were in
my parents and grandparents day…what have you done for me lately?
Somewhere along the line, we need to do things
in this country because they are for the good of the country.
President Bush’s space initiative falls into this category. I would
support it if it were proposed by Clinton, either of them and for a
myriad of reasons.
The spin-offs from the Mercury, Gemini, and
Apollo programs were mostly physical, leading to pretty much the
entire semiconductor industry as we know it today. Others include
such prosaic things as Velcro, Teflon, Tang, and the many products
developed incorporating or modifying these over the years. A Mars
mission will undoubtedly add to the list. But most important will be
spin-offs related to the biological sciences. For while the moon
missions took 3 days travel each way, with a few days spent on the
moon itself, a Mars mission will take months of travel time in
zero-gee, with up to a year and a half spent at 1/3rd gravity on
Mars itself. Experiences in Earth orbit for extended periods have
uncovered numerous medically-related issues that will have to be
addressed before such a mission can go forward. The answers to these
problems will have major impact on medical science here on Earth,
particularly as they can be applied to improving longevity and
quality of life in our aging population.
Can specific advances be predicted? No more so
than the people of the 60’s could envision the technology we take
for granted today. What is certain however is that such advances
will be made, and that we will use them to improve our lives as we
have in the past.
The advance of knowledge has always brought an
advance in consumer applications. One of the biggest generators of
such advance has been war. An every-day example would be the
preservation of food by canning, which was developed by the French
as a means of supplying the armies of Napoleon, allowing them to
travel without foraging. This was not done out of humanitarian
consideration for the people whose crops and livestock would
otherwise be plundered, but rather because foraging takes time,
entails a certain amount of disorganization amongst the forces doing
the foraging, and makes you dependent on the enemy to supply your
needs. Living off your own supplies allowed you to move faster,
maintain unit cohesion, and be less affected by tactics such as
burning crops to deny them to you. It granted you a tactical and
strategic advantage over your enemy. Now of course, we take it for
granted that we can go into a supermarket and pick up cans or jars
of whatever we want, whether it is in season or not, and can store
up as much as we want or need.
How much better to be able to push the
frontiers of knowledge, and apply the results to consumer goods,
without the goad of war to spur it along! A refocused, revitalized
space program that really pushes the frontiers will provide that
impetus.
But first, we have to get Frosty across the
bright side of Mercury.
Additional links:
The Mars Society
Technological Requirements for Terraforming
Mars – Dr Robert Zubrin
Mars Direct Home Page
The Case For Mars – International Conference
for the Exploration and Colonization of Mars
NASA Spinoffs - Bringing Space down to Earth
We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.
