The Lure of Mars

OPINION SPACE

The Lure of Mars

With dry riverbeds, enormous canyons, soaring volcanic peaks, sedimentary (fossils?) rock basins, and polar ice caps, Mars has long been the focus of our collective imaginations.

by Jon R. Pedicino
Eureka - Oct 23, 2001
I would like to take this opportunity to expand on the notion put forth recently in the article "Where's my flying car." As the author stated, the fact that NASA will spend $30 billion and take some 42 shuttle flights (each running some $500 million) to build the International Space Station (ISS) is somewhat disturbing to those of us brought up to dream about a mission to Mars as a follow on to our triumph on the moon in 1969.

In all, the total cost of the station is projected to be some $100 billion over its fifteen-year lifetime. And yes, we have already been there and done that in the 70's with Skylab.

The discussion of the human risk is valid as well. Being an astronaut is potentially very dangerous. If we are going to place these highly trained people at risk, it should be for a focused vision like a trip to Mars, not a political mission like the ISS.

In addition, most of these missions are centered around the space shuttle, and the shuttle is an aging and overused spacecraft that is in need of a successor.

Keep in mind that it was designed in the 60's, build in the 70's, and flown for the past 20 years. Unfortunately, the money being allocated to the space station is draining resources from the development of the next generation shuttle.

The cost of the station is mind-boggling. It is of a magnitude only seen when discussing tax breaks and spending plans. That assessment is fair because that is where it belongs, in the realm of politics.

The space station is a political tool, designed to unite the world under the banner of a shared project and vision, but it should not be mistaken for bold new science and/or exploration. With this in mind, it should also not be draining the resources of NASA.

So, given the money and the vision, where do we go next? The easy answer is: not the moon. It is another repeat and lacks the most thought provoking and exciting questions that will fire the imaginations of another generation of young scientists. The answer is as obvious as the hundreds of millions of web hits that came from the Pathfinder mission in 1997: Mars.

With dry riverbeds, enormous canyons, soaring volcanic peaks, sedimentary (fossils?) rock basins, and polar ice caps, this world has long been the focus of our collective imaginations.

The good news is, that is both affordable and attainable in the near future (about ten years) with Apollo-like vision and determination. Especially in this day and age, wouldn't it be wonderful for the world to rally around a journey to another world?

Current estimates put the costs at between $20 and $40 billion over about a decade. Not only is this a fraction of the cost of the space station, it can be done with existing technology.

Due to the alignment of the planets and the most fuel efficient trip, astronauts would spend about six months traveling each way and have about a year and a half to study the red planet up close.

Best of all, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to produce rocket fuel for the return trip out of carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere and hydrogen (among the lightest of gasses) from home.

Though I applaud NASA's amazing range of discoveries on a reduced budget, I feel that we need to recapture the initiative of Apollo, this time to unite the world rather than to prove our engineering prowess and win a cold war race.

The excitement over the Pathfinder mission in 1997 provided us with only the slightest glimpse of the potential for this country and the world to rally around the ideals exploration and discovery.

For those who would return first to the moon on the way to Mars, I would warn you against heeding that siren's song and driving our ship of exploration towards those barren rocks. First of all, we could not get back to the moon today if we wanted to without a sizable ($20-$40 billion) expenditure.

The simple truth is that we have lost our ability to get there. The shuttle can only travel 200 km from the Earth, the moon is 400,000 km away. The engineers who could trouble shoot a Saturn V rocket, like the one that got Apollo to the moon, have long since retired or passed on.

We are left with the blueprints for a finicky machine with an astonishing one million moving parts! It would be easier to build a heavy-lift rocket from scratch.

Even ignoring this fact, the moon is a mirage is terms of planetary exploration. It has no active geology, no widespread water, and certainly no life.

Mars may be three for three on these counts.

I leave you with one final truth about returning to the moon that effectively bursts that bubble. It is easier and less costly in a fuel sense to go to Mars than to travel to the moon.

In space, once you are up to speed, you coast the rest of the way. It would take roughly the same amount of fuel to get up to speed for either trip. The kicker is what happens when you get there.

Yes, Mars is a longer trip, but cosmonauts have done fine on trips longer than that in the Mir space station. When you arrive at the moon you need to fire your rockets in reverse to slow yourself down and land on the surface.

Mars has an atmosphere. By using a process known as aerobraking (demonstrated on multiple Mars missions to date) the ship can use the atmospheric drag to slow it down before landing on Mars with parachutes and the like.

This simple fact makes Mars the easier trip in a fuel sense, and fuel is weight, and weight is cost. Mars is the obvious choice from every perspective. We have only to follow the vision and embrace the lure of space...

Dr. Pedicino is currently a Professor of Astronomy at College of the Redwoods in Eureka, California. He holds a doctorate from the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona in Martian geology. He is a strong advocate of space exploration both as an avenue for the advancement of science and a tool to inspire future scientists and international cooperation.

OPINION SPACE

If Someone Builds It, We Will Go!

Centerville - Oct 22, 2001
Recent contributions to SpaceDaily, (The Children of Apollo & Visions for the Future, Where Is My Flying Car?) have gone a long way to voicing the frustrations of many like me who have spent their lives waiting with baited breath for the Space Age to get going again.

The Children of Apollo & Visions for the Future

Rosslyn - Oct 9, 2001
Many of SpaceDaily's reader (myself included) are 'Children of Apollo', whose most impressionable years were profoundly touched by Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, writes Eric Strobel in an essay that explores the social contract his generation signed up for that promised a future supported by science and exploration.

Where's My Flying Car?

Pasadena - Sept. 22, 2001
In 1981, when I was ten, my parents and I watched live on television as the very first shuttle blasted off from Cape Canaveral. I had such great hopes for the manned space program. I was excited because I thought the shuttle would take us to outer space. I wanted to be an astronaut. I wanted to go to the Moon, Mars and the other planets.

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only

The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2016 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement All images and articles appearing on Space Media Network have been edited or digitally altered in some way. Any requests to remove copyright material will be acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Any attempt to extort money from Space Media Network will be ignored and reported to Australian Law Enforcement Agencies as a potential case of financial fraud involving the use of a telephonic carriage device or postal service.