Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message news:400b547d$0$41120

Gregg Easterbrook is at it again.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...sterbrook.html

I wonder if this column is as error filled as his shuttle OpEds? (I
haven't
read this one, yet).

Jon

---

Error #1:

Easterbrook: "Rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars to hurl tons
toward Mars using current technology, why not take a decade-or two decades,
or however much time is required-researching new launch systems and advanced
propulsion?"

GWB: "Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020. ... With the
experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take
the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds
beyond." [some estimates put the hoped-for Mars mission around 2030 -- over
*two and a half decades away*]

Additionally, the Prometheus project is doing just such related research
today.

---

Easterbrook is absolutely *infamous* for not checking his facts before
publication -- and this is well-known and commented on publicly even by his
*friends*. It throws into question what this guy is basing his
pronouncements on. Are all "Brookings Scholars" this sloppy on such key
points?

---

Misleading statement:

Easterbrook: "And Mars as a destination for people makes absolutely no sense
with current technology."

This is true. Did anyone claim that we'd go to Mars in 2030 with 2004
technology?

---

Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."

Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

---

Easterbrook: "Space-exploration proponents deride as lack of vision the
mention of technical barriers or the insistence that needs on Earth come
first. Not so. The former is rationality, the latter the setting of
priorities."

The pittance that NASA receives compared to that of social programs is a
drop in the bucket. The priorities have already been set. If we want the
Mars part of the vision to be accomplished, it will require that
breakthroughs and cost reductions be made during the lunar phase, or else it
will be canceled before it starts. The cost figures cited by Easterbrook and
others are thus invalid.

---

Easterbrook: "The drive to explore is part of what makes us human, and
exploration of the past has led to unexpected glories. Dreams must be
tempered by realism, however. For the moment, going to Mars is hopelessly
unrealistic."

Did he not listen to the President?:

Bush: "Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program.
Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the
costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious
missions. ... With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will
then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to
Mars and to worlds beyond."

---

Easterbrook: "... which calls for "reprogramming" some of NASA's present
budget into the Mars effort, might actually lead to a reduction in such
unmanned science-the one aspect of space exploration that's working really
well."

Did he not listen to the President?:

Bush: "Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers -- the advanced guard to
the unknown."

---