MarsDrive

Our knowledge of our world has continually grown over the centuries as we gradually explored and settled new regions that we had discovered in those explorations. With each new discovery there were both positive and negative outcomes, and through it all people never stepped back from going further. The quest to find answers to questions like “Who are we or what is our place in this world” has lead us on to continually push open new areas of exploration, and that includes all fields of knowledge, not just physical explorations of various lands and territories.

Many times the opening of new lands included new innovations as people learnt to adapt to their new environments. Our civilization has advanced forward because of these exploration initiatives. No one with a knowledge of history can seriously deny this. Those cultures that refused to move, even when faced with imminent disaster have been lost to history. Archeologists now spend their time digging up the remains of such cultures and finding out what caused their demise in the first place. The fall of many societies of the past was due to an inward looking obsession where the leaders and wealthy no longer bothered with things like expansion, exploration, new inventions or innovations. Instead they spent the monies of the populations under their control on things like continual warfare with neighboring people groups, and over time the cost of doing this began to take a toll on many other sectors of society, especially true for the Roman Empire.

There were no new options that could be pursued when Rome found itself in this state. All income was devoted to defending the empire and this caused the break down of many of the great institutions and achievements Rome had built up over time. Similar thing are happening today in the western world. The war on terror is starting to take up ever larger bites of our tax revenues while many other needed programs are downgraded and ignored. This is not going to strengthen our civilization. Defense of modern empires can be our own undoing. The priority of war becomes so great that it leads to an economic standstill in many other sectors. This is but one cause of a civilization’s decline. Ignoring the importance of scientific and engineering research and development means that as our world evolves we lose pace with the requirements of living and our standards begin to slip. Before we know it our poorer classes are growing at an exponential rate, and I’m sure no one can deny the realities of this fact today in our societies.

Inward looking societies do not thrive. They implode. They stop looking for ways to grow and expand their horizons and begin to focus on trying to keep their place of prominence in the world. The fact that today so many of the influential voices in our society are more concerned with keeping the status quo than expanding the frontiers of our knowledge is well established. Just read some of the more “well respected” newspapers, hear what is coming out of the universities and what topics are being debated in the political arenas. It seems that every time a new invention or discovery is found, those same critical voices set about quashing any hope of future developments and often lock such issues up in years of regulatory barriers and lack of adequate funding. But we need to ask ourselves what is important? Do we want our civilizations to grow?

Do we want the frontiers of knowledge to continue to expand so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits such knowledge bring us? Or will we encourage the voices of mediocrity and stagnation by continuing to listen to them and ignore the history and potential that new discoveries bring us? For example, where would we be without weather satellites?

How many people owe their lives to this wonder of modern technology? Lack of early warning technologies is something we see in many 3^rd world regions of the earth for example in

the recent Indian Ocean Tsunamis that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people. No one can deny that modern inventions and technologies have made our lives safer and more enjoyable. Some would argue that certain modern inventions like the atomic bomb have negated all of the positives but it really just comes down to human nature. The inventions we make can be used for any purpose. That is not a reason to step back from research and development.

Human nature will always be human nature. Inventions can be used any way we decide, and that is one of the major reasons going into space and onto places like Mars is so important. Nothing on earth compares to the perspective changing power of human space flight and exploration. Just ask any astronaut how their view of earth changed once they entered space. Many inventions can be used for good or evil, but the adventure that is exploring and settling new worlds has always had the very real effect of producing new societies even here on earth. New traditions and new ways of doing things are born out of  the very act of settling in new and strange environments. Humans know how to adapt, and it is in those evolutionary adaptations where we see a flourishing of new ideas and advancements. To walk away from this is to repeat the lessons of history.

Some might say that we don’t need to settle or explore new worlds because things are going just fine right now. Those who hold to such views obviously are not students of history. In his book The Case For Mars Robert Zubrin said it best- "Currently we see around us an ever more apparent loss of vigor of our society: increasing fixity of the power structure and bureaucratization of all levels of life; impotence of politicial institutions to carry off great projects; the proliferation of regulations affecting all aspects of public, private, and commercial life; the spread of irrationalism; the banalization of popular culture; the loss of willingness by individuals to take risks, to fend for themselves or think for themselves; economic stagnation and decline; the deceleration of the rate of technological innovation...Everywhere you look the writing is on the wall".

Other people might say that if we need to settle new places why not just go to Antarctica or under the sea? Why not green up some of our deserts and re-establish flourishing societies there? It would be much easier to do this than going to places like the Moon and Mars after all. These are all valid points. They can and should be pursued. But not at the expense of going into space and onto Mars. Why? Because every environment is unique. Every new environment we explore holds many new discoveries and challenges unique to those places, and on that basis there is no way Antarctica or living under our seas can compare to what lies in store for us on whole new planets. The awe and sheer inspirational power of humans in space cannot be compared to anything on earth. No other pursuit comes close to the inspirational power of seeing humans on new planets. Going to such places has and will always be one of the most technically difficult things we ever do. The environments on other worlds are completely hostile to life as we know it. If we are to extract the full benefits contained in such worlds we are going to have to come up with new ways of building cities, new vehicles, new technologies that can operate in such conditions and eventually pursuit of the radical concept of Terraforming.

Doing all of these things will have immediate, and very tangible benefits for many of us living here on earth. Over the last several decades space agencies have been sending out probes into our solar system which has resulting in some stunning discoveries over that time. Robotic exploration has opened our solar system up in some amazing ways and human exploration while more difficult offers far more promise in this field of study. We want to look for life on or under the surface of places like Mars but the only way an extensive and planet wide exploration can be conducted is with humans. Humans have proved in places like the Mars Society’s Mars analogue research stations that we can clearly outperform any robot explorer hands down. While the maintenance and cost of humans in space is much higher than for robots, so are the science returns.

If we are happy to crawl along at a snails pace and stagnate in our technological advancements then robots in space are the way to go. But if we want to explore and gain the full and immediate term benefits of places like Mars then we must send humans there. No doubt any argument that supports sending humans to Mars can be defeated on many fronts. Witness the release of the book The Case For Mars, then witness the backlash as critics spent the next few years ripping apart the points that were so well laid out by a highly qualified author in Robert Zubrin. Whatever my own qualifications or arguments may be on this subject the fact remains that there will always be counter points. Many of these criticisms refer to the complexities and consequences of sending humans to space, from the long term exposure to zero gravity to radiation and partial air pressures and the human mental condition throughout long term space missions. None of these things can be glossed over or ignored but for the purposes of this paper I will simply say that there are literally hundreds of counter arguments you can read up on and become familiar with, and there is no need for me to repeat those here.

Difficulties do exist. That cannot be denied. But let’s look at some of those. Some say that zero gravity exposure will cause too much damage to human bodies on a Mars mission so that they won’t even be strong enough to stand on the surface. One clear solution to this is to build simulated gravity spinning sections for any ship that goes to Mars. Some will say that this is close to impossible but we are not building the pyramids here. The International Space Station was constructed in Low Earth Orbit so the procedures and experience in such things is already there from the engineering community. The construction of a spinning component to a Mars transit ship can be done. We have the materials, we have the designs, we have the experience in orbital construction techniques. All that is needed now is the will to make it happen. The same goes for radiation protection for Mars transit ships and space suits. The technology needed to set humans down upon another world were established and proven 40 years ago. Since then many of these technologies have improved so that any future missions will benefit from these last 4 decades of human orbital space research.

We are not building from scratch here when it comes to a Mars mission. Anyone who says otherwise obviously has no real knowledge of the history and developments in human space flights. The travel time to Mars can even be brought down significantly with proven and tested propulsion systems in use today. Can air be supplied to astronauts on an extended trip to Mars? Yes. The ISS is proof of that. Will astronauts who are well trained and professional go totally nuts on a trip to Mars? Again, ISS studies have shown that the effects of long term exposure in space are not by any means a killer. Some people might not like being cramped and isolated but that is what training is all about. We would not be sending novices to Mars. What about food and water supplies? NASA and other groups like The Mars Society have been doing research on greenhouse and water recycling technologies for many years now and there has been clear progress made on that front. Humans could survive on a trip to and from Mars. From a recent interview I conducted with an astronaut there is also a calming/relaxing effect space has on astronauts that the critics don’t like to discuss. There may be problems but there are also benefits.

What about our experience in getting things to and on the surface of Mars? As I write this the Mars Recon Orbiter has now arrived in Martian orbit ready to begin the next phase of our exploration of the red planet. More than any other world, Mars has had the highest number of missions sent to it. The failures are noted, but for every failure new lessons are learned and if we had to choose a planet for humans to explore based on our experience in sending ships there, then Mars is the clear winner by far. We know more about sending ships to Mars than any other planet, and those explorations have been going on for 40 years now. No other world can compare. Mars is the ideal candidate for planetary exploration by humans.

One thing I have noted about critics of a humans to Mars mission is that they criticize every aspect of such plans without failure, even when the criticism is not warranted or makes any sense. They ignore the many positive aspects and completely focus on the negatives. The same could be said for those in favor of a Mars mission but the fact that people like Robert Zubrin and others have given detailed and researched answers to the negatives and the problems for a Mars mission seem to go unnoticed by the critics. Such answers are either ignored or dismissed completely. That is not reasonable criticism. It is uninformed and prejudiced opinion masquerading as reasoned criticism. I would like to see the critics of humans to Mars seriously address the positives and the developments that have made human space flight much better over the years. I would like to see them examine the positive aspects in the same detail that pro-Mars advocates examine the negatives.

Humans have walked on another world. It is not a new thing by any means. So how can the critics of a Mars mission expect us to believe that 40 years later we are still not capable of going to Mars? I often hear the negative and pessimistic comments of critics against a human Mars mission saying things like- “ It will take 50 years and 500 Billion to achieve”, or “ It just isn’t possible” I have even heard some comment that it could be 200 years before we get there. It makes me wonder where their reasoning comes from on such matters. It is clearly not from observing the development of the space race over the last 50 years. The general public quite often tend to believe negatives far more easily than positives but what they don’t understand is there are two kinds of critics. There are the uninformed, prejudiced critics who are already against a Mars mission and they will always criticize it, even when people finally do land on Mars one day, and then there are critics who do want to see us on Mars but want to see improvements made first.

My advice to anyone on this matter is to look deeply at both sides of the argument and give both sides equal attention. If you want to criticize, then do so when you are informed on both sides of the argument first. Can humans go to Mars? Yes. Is the technology there? Yes. Is there evidence for this? Yes. Do we need to go to Mars? The answer to that depends on your priorities. If you want growth and to see humans continue to discover new worlds of knowledge, then our expansion into space is a logical next step. If on the other hand you think all the growth and discoveries we need to progress are here on earth then Mars will never be a viable option for you. Our people are our future. New worlds can stimulate us all to new heights of innovation and inspiration as they have before. New societies can be created. A new page in history can be written. History has already proven these facts.

Is it realistic to send humans to Mars? That is the wrong question. Realism is not the issue. We send things to Mars all the time now. We have been sending humans into space for over 40 years. The research on long term exposure to space is well established. Solutions are no longer an impossible reach. Many groups from government agencies like NASA to private space flight companies and space advocates are doing substantial work on all of the issues that will enable a future mission to Mars. If they had more support from both government funding and the general public they would be much further along in their progress.

Going to Mars and establishing a permanent human presence and civilization there is going to be one of the greatest and most challenging things humans have ever embarked upon, it will have its problems, there will be disasters along the way as in all moves by humans to settle new worlds. This is nothing new. Critics who want everything to be perfect before we do anything just will never get their wish. Humans are fallible creatures, and unless we can change who we are everything we do will have problems attached. This is why going to Mars is not unrealistic. Critics are the ones who are wishing for the unrealistic when they expect impossible things from fallible humans. The space programs so far have been a mix of triumphs and failures. “A rough road leads to the stars”. Yet through it all we have expanded our knowledge and reaped the benefits all along the way. That is why we must continue and go on to greater goals like humans on the Moon and Mars.