So, we walked on the moon, placed a flag there and now what? Do the same thing with Mars and be done with it? If we conquered other planets, shouldn’t we be able to use them in any way? Maybe I just don’t know, but in the past thirty years, can someone tell me, what have we done with the moon that was so useful? If I am right, then why make such a big deal about Mars???
Well, the real reason is likely “political capital.” Going to Mars sounds neat. And we don’t want everybody (voters) thinking we’re sitting on our hands while the Chinese are moving steadily on their own space program, and will likely have a moon mission (if not the rudiments of a moon base) within 20 years, at the latest.
But, what are legit. reasons to send humans to Mars? On the research end, if we sent humans, they could likely do much more robust research than any hlaf-dozen of our robot probes could. Neither rover can tell if there’s life there. They weren’t built to. But astronauts can just whip out a microscope and a petri dish, and use their sizeable brains and excellent agility and mobility to do stuff the rovers can’t.
(Of course, the reason they can do all that, is b/c it’s such a huge problem/expense to get people there, keep them alive, and bring them back in the first place, that sticking microscopes, petri dishes/incubators, sample return canisters, etc., in with them is no big deal.)
Specific reasons:
- Look for signs of life (current or fossil)
- Do extreme geology (learn more about the formation/history of Mars, which can tell us more about how the solar system as a whole, and all solar systems, and the earth, formed, and might evolve in the future)
- Learn more about the effects of space travel on human beings (could be done more easily/cheapply/closer to home, but it’s still a side benefit)
- Lay the groundwork for future habitation
Of course, the problem, in general, is that we still don’t have a really good method of propulsion. That’s what they should be working on (along with developing closed artificial ecosystems). If we could get people to Mars in a shorter time/for much less money (akin to sea passage costs in Colonial days), it’s entirely possible we could have space colonies. Such space travel would change humanity in general, and Mars colonies would be one result.
The short answer is that the moon is extremely resource-poor compared to Mars. You can extract oxygen (in limited quantities) and helium-3 (which will be useful for not-yet-practical fusion reactors) from the lunar regolith, and there’s probably some amount of frozen water in craters and at the poles, but that’s pretty much it. The only advantage the moon has over Mars is that it’s much, much easier to get to.
Mars, on the other hand, has lots of water, possibly even more than the substantial amounts theorized prior to the confirmations we’re receiving from the Spirit and Opportunity rovers. It also has other minerals and materials that can be exploited. Basically, if you solve the distance problem, it’ll be a heck of a lot easier to set up a self-sustaining colony on Mars than on the moon. And if you figure out how to make the Martian soil safe for growing crops (it’s likely to be suffused with chlorine and salts that Earth plants won’t enjoy), it’ll be easier yet.
The thing to remember about Mars is that while it’s smaller than Earth by a large measure, the fact that there’s no open bodies of water means its available acreage is approximately equal to the land masses of Earth. So there’s plenty of room to spread out.
And in the long view, human survival depends on getting off our original rock. It’s not just about finding additional resources (the asteroids are an excellent source of iron, nickel, and various other ores and volatiles), and it’s not about eliminating the possibility of a planet-killing disaster (like a comet collision) erasing the human species because all of our eggs are in the same proverbial basket. There’s a deep emotional need to explore and expand, and we’re running out of Earth on which to do it. The human spirit demands a new frontier.
That’s the short answer. For the long answer, read Zubrin’s The Case for Mars.
It’s still up for debate, though. If you go to the Great Debates forum, you can find several threads provoked by Bush’s recent announcements. Read those and bump one of them if you want to argue against the idea.
Conquering the moon and “other planets” is the manifest destiny of humanity. We’ve defeated and enslaved the inhabitants of the moon and shall do the same to the Martians once we conquer their planet. Let the Venusians, Jovians, Ionians, Europans and the creatures of all those planets quake at Earthican power!
Exactly. Finally, a person who understands what NASA is all about.
Not really a GQ. I’ll move this to IMHO.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
The money spent on the Apollo wasn’t left on the moon, it was spent right here on Earth to develop new technologies and infrastructure. Telecommunications, environmental science (incl. weather forecasts), unmanned interplanetary exploration, scientific satellites and all other fields related to space benefited from the Apollo program.