On 14 Jul 2004 13:34:20 -0700, (Mark
Whittington) wrote, in part:
"Perplexed in Peoria" wrote in message ...
"Mark Whittington" wrote in message m...

Your Humble Servant once again opines in the pages of USA Today, this
time using the Cassini mission to discuss the nature of exploration
and to settle once and for all the tiresome humans vrs robots
argument.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ttington_x.htm

Gee. I'm glad that one is finally settled. ;-)

You would be surprised at the number of people who think it is not.

I don't agree with the position that humans are never needed, and we
should stick to robots.

But I do also think that instrumented missions are definitely more
cost-effective, and deserve significantly more emphasis than they
currently get at NASA.

This is despite the fact that missions like the Mars rover mission and
the Cassini mission are not stimulating the public interest for the
length of time, and to the great extent, that a manned mission would.
Space exploration cannot be cost-justified _merely_ as entertainment.

Not that it *is* mere entertainment.

Sending a human crew to Mars, unlike much of the Shuttle/Space Station
program, definitely would be an appropriate use of funds. The fact
that it wasn't done in the 1980s, when it might have been just barely
feasible, plus the important contributions of Dr. Robert Zubrin, ought
to mean that such a mission will be less expensive than it might
otherwise have been.

The problem with George Bush's Mars proposal, of course, is mainly
that the political climate doesn't seem to be within light-years of
being right for such a thing. Now, if *Bill Clinton* had made the
proposal, of course, certain influential media elements would have
given it a better ride.

That President Clinton was considered in some ways to be an echo of
John F. Kennedy would also have been helped. Unlike Kennedy, though,
a) he wasn't a war hero, and b) in respect of his escapades, he got
caught while in office.

Like (I think) most people, I personally would find it to be a big
thrill to actually stand on the surface of Mars. Edmund Hillary
notwithstanding, however, neither "because it is there" nor the beauty
of the Martian landscape, which might be compared to that of the fair
Helen, can launch a hundred billion dollars.

What *does* it take to justify a manned mission to Mars?

We might discover life there.

Obviously, that would be very important. However, as a big sell, it
does have its limitations.

1) It will radically alter our understanding of biology, since we
won't have only one example.

True. However, the odds of a cure for cancer falling out of that are
*not* as high as sometimes presented.

2) The discovery of Mars will radically alter our conception of our
place in the Universe.

True. An influential segment of the American voting public, however,
reads this as 'once we find life on Mars, nobody's going to stop us
from putting Darwin into the schools'.


Also, as I've previously noted, the danger of Martian life being
harmful to Earth is not as nonexistent as Dr. Zubrin claims; while
many pathogens, like those for AIDS and malaria, have complicated life
cycles that involve interacting with their hosts, mold and mildew just
eat what they attack. The really dangerous Martian microorganisms may
not be able to survive the trip to Earth on a meteorite.

Plus, there's the question of astronauts, by their presence,
contaminating the Martian ecosystem, if any.

Even if we find only life of Earthly ancestry - from meteorites - on
Mars, contamination is still an issue, since it will be all the harder
to distinguish Martian life from that which is imported for purposes
of studying what life had made it to Mars, and what had happened to it
since, if it is very similar to regular Earth life.


So, using instrumented probes, carefully sterilized, to settle the
question of biology ahead of time is a good idea.


Then we could talk about spinoffs.

New ways to package orange juice are underwhelming.

Of course, real benefits in public health might result from designing
a life support system which allows astronauts to drink water derived
from each other's urine...

combined with a space program that can't discriminate against
HIV-positive prospective astronaut corps members.

Yes, I dare to be less sanguine than Dr. Zubrin about the life support
question.


Instead of bemoaning the fact that our present civilization has
apparently lost the will to explore, of course, it does make sense to
think about how we might *regain* it. It is no accident that George W.
Bush's Mars proposal came in the wake of September 11, 2001.

You know, the event that made male psychology respectable again,
because besides making men into rapists and wife beaters, it makes
them more effective as firefighters?

Guantanamo - and Abu Ghraib - notwithstanding, it doesn't seem to have
silenced the liberal natterers for long. Does that matter, if majority
opinion has changed decisively, and Americans in general now, once
again, favor such long (apparently, not really) discredited things as
using military force in self-defence?

Now that an emotional factor has muted the debate over whether or not
very tall buildings are an efficient use of land, or wasteful in terms
of heating costs and strain on infrastructure?

The "survival principle", the idea that it is good to strive to be
strong and powerful - because the alternative is to be ground into the
dust by someone else, if for no other reason - is still a notion that
barely dares to breathe its name. Missions to Mars are at least
peaceful nonviolent scientific research operations, at least when
carried out by "socialist countries".

A successful mission to Mars *would* capture the imaginations of a new
generation of young Americans. Which is precisely why a significant
chunk of people will do just about anything to stop it... although the
ones I'm thinking of will stop short of sabotage, if not mendacity.

Are there baby steps - but bigger than Sojourner, Cassini, or the
current Mars Rovers, which do not seem to have had a significant
effect on public consciousness - that can gradually turn this around?
Or is there no alternative to the boldness of a Mars mission?

I suppose it is just difficult for a cynic to be optimistic. But I
try. Whatever the failings of the human race, it is good at muddling
through when it has to.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html